MGMT 520 Entire Course NEW

DEVRY MGMT 520 Entire Course With Final NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-520-
devry/mgmt-520-entire-course-with-final-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
MGMT 520 Week 1 Discussion NEW
MGMT 520 Week 2 Case Study Colgate Palmolive Co NEW
MGMT 520 Week 2 Course Project Constitutional Issues,
International Law Issues or administrative agency Issues
(Apple) NEW
MGMT 520 Week 2 Proposed Regulation changes (2 Papers)
NEW
MGMT 520 Week 3 Case Study tarasoff vs. regents of the
university of California NEW
MGMT 520 Week 3 Course Project Torts, Product Liability or
Environmental law issues (Apple) NEW
MGMT 520 Week 4 Case Study Lucy vs Zehmer NEW

MGMT 520 Week 4 Contract Case Analysis SpongeBob (2
Papers) NEW
MGMT 520 Week 4 Course Project contacts, real Property or
Intellectual property issues (Apple) NEW
MGMT 520 Week 5 Case Study (Jane Lifeguard, John, Lionel and
Evelyn Harrymore) (2 Papers) NEW
MGMT 520 Week 5 Case Study Meritor Savings bank v. Vinson
NEW
MGMT 520 Week 5 Course Project Employment Law Issues
(Apple) NEW
MGMT 520 Week 6 Case Assignment Case 24-5 United States v.
Microsoft Corporation (2 Papers) NEW
MGMT 520 Week 6 Case Study Utah Pie v Continental Baking
NEW
MGMT 520 Week 7 Case Study FaceSpace (Paul and Thomas
Geoffries) (2 Papers) NEW
MGMT 520 Week 7 Case Study US vs Mc Dermott NEW
MGMT 520 Week 7 Final Course Project (Apple) NEW

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 1 Discussion NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-1-discussion-recent
Watch the video case study (linked below), then post your
comments and discuss this case. This story is about the
Supreme Court's decision. What process did this case have to go
through to get to the Supreme Court?
http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/streaming/bp/2013/busine
ss_law/BLaw2013_Court_Sys.html
Question : After viewing the video, lets focus on an overview of
the federal court system.
1. What are the different trial courts?
2.What are the appellate courts, and what is the U.S.
3. Supreme Court's role in the appeal process?
Let's not get sidetracked with the substantive legal issue(s) of
the Walmart discrimination case. As interesting as this topic is
... lets focus for now on the procedural issues of how the federal
court system is structured.

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 2 Case Study Colgate Palmolive Co
NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-2-case-study-colgate-palmolive-
co-recent
MGMT 520 Week 2 Case Study Colgate Palmolive Co NEW

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 2 Course Project Constitutional Issues,
(Apple) NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-2-course-project-constitutional-
issues,-international-law-issues-or-administrative-
agency-issues-recent
MGMT 520 Week 2 Course Project Constitutional Issues,
(Apple) NEW

Discussion week 2
Watch the video case study (link below) and discuss the case
emphasizing the connections between
business, law, politics, and ethics. Please make as 3 answers
http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/streaming/bp/2013/busine
ss_law/BLaw2013_Const_Law.html

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 2 Proposed Regulation Changes (2
Papers) NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-2-proposed-regulation-changes-
recent
Pick an administrative agency of either the United States
Federal or a state government.
Find where the current and proposed regulation changes for
that agency are located on the
Internet (i.e., the Federal Register or the State Administrative
Agency website.) The site
regulations.gov is a good place to begin your research. Pick one
proposed regulation change
currently under consideration (if you find one that has already
closed out but interests you, you
can use that instead) and, then answer these questions.
1. State the administrative agency that controls the regulation.
Briefly explain why this

agency and your proposed regulation change interests you. Will
this proposed regulation affect
you or the business in which you are working? If so, how?
Submit a copy of the proposed regulation along with your
responses to these five
questions. The proposed regulation can be submitted as either
a separate Word document (.doc)
or Adobe file (.pdf).
2. Describe the proposal or change.
3. Write the public comment that you would submit for this
proposal. If the proposed
regulation deadline has already passed, write the comment you
would have submitted. Explain
briefly what you wish to accomplish with your comment.
4. Provide the "deadline" by which the public comment must be
made. (If the date has
already passed, please provide when the deadline was).
5. Answer the following questions about your chosen proposal,
regardless of whether you
are in favor of this proposed regulation.
a. If the proposal passes, identify and explain the five legal
theories you could use in an

attempt to have (any) administrative regulation declared
invalid and overturned in court.
b. Which of these challenges would be the best way to challenge
the regulation you
selected for this assignment if you wanted to have the
regulation overturned, and why?
This homework should be 2–3 pages long and single spaced (for
a total of 65 points). See
doc-sharing for a sample regulation. You will submit two
attachments to the Week 2 Dropbox:
(a) a Word document with the questions and your answers, and
(b) a copy of the proposed
regulation you used for this assignment.
Description Points available Point

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 3 Case Study tarasoff vs. regents of the
devry/mgmt-520-week-3-case-study-tarasoff-vs.-regents-
of-the-university-of-california-recent
MGMT 520 Week 3 Case Study tarasoff vs. regents of the

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 3 Course Project Torts, Product
Liability or Environmental Law Issues (Apple) NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-3-course-project-torts,-product-
liability-or-environmental-law-issues-recent
MGMT 520 Week 3 Course Project Torts, Product Liability or
Environmental Law Issues (Apple) NEW

Discussion week 3
Question : If a hotel hosts a pool with a dangerous drain cover,
and someone dies due to the drain cover, what sort of liability
might that hotel have? Ignore criminal issues related to the new
law passed, and focus on civil liability under torts and
negligence. ( Pls make a three answer)
Watch the video case study (link below) and discuss the case
emphasizing the connections between business, law, politics,
and ethics.
 Video Case Study: Intentional Torts and Negligence
 http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/streaming/bp/2013/b
usiness_law/BLaw2013_Int_Torts.html (click here)

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 4 Case Study Lucy vs Zehmer NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-4-case-study-lucy-vs-zehmer-
recent
MGMT 520 Week 4 Case Study Lucy vs Zehmer NEW

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 4 Contract Case Analysis SpongeBob
NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-4-contract-case-analysis-sponge-
bob-recent
SpongeBob is a farmer who contracted with Progresso soup to
provide 6 tons of clams worth $3000/ton to be delivered at
Progresso each month. Progresso soup needs this particular
amount of clams each month for their soup in order to meet
their production expectations for their customers. The contract
contained some very lopsided provisions that excused
Progresso soup from purchasing the clams in the event of many
outlined reasons (25 pages of the contract listed out all of the
reasons why Progresso could refuse to accept the clams), but
prevented SpongeBob from selling his clams elsewhere without
permission. After a gulf coast oil disaster, the price of clams
went up to $8000/ton. SpongeBob delivered his clams to
Progresso on time, but Progresso (who had lost a case filed
against Progresso by Campbell's soup for infringing on
Campbell's clam chowder soup recipe) refused to accept
delivery. SpongeBob requested permission to sell the clams to
Campbell's (who had just doubled their own clam chowder
sales), but Progresso refused to grant permission. The terms of
SpongeBob's contract with Progresso stated:

"In no event will Progresso's refusal to accept delivery of clams
excuse SpongeBob from being required to follow all other
terms of this contract, including the "no sale to competitors
without written permission of Progresso" clause. Progresso
may withhold permission for any reason."
Another clause says, "In the event that a court finds any portion
of this contract to be illegal or void, all other portions will
remain valid and enforceable."
Another clause says, "Progresso's liability cap on this contract
is no more than the total value of the contract as stated. No 3rd
party liability is assumed under this contract."
At the time of Progresso's refusal to grant permission,
Campbells had offered SpongeBob $8500/ton for his 6 tons of
clams. Instead, the clams rotted and had to be disposed of. An
animal rights group is outraged at the waste and blew up
SpongeBob's boat, destroying it.
SpongeBob wants to sue Progresso. On what bases can
SpongeBob sue, recover and what will be his damages? What
defenses does Progresso have? Can Progresso include
Campbell's in the lawsuit? Is the animal rights group a potential
party to the contract dispute? Can SpongeBob recover for the
loss of his boat against Progresso? Why or why not? Explain
fully your answer.

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 4 Course Project contacts, real
Property or Intellectual property issues (Apple) NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-4-course-project-contacts,-real-
property-or-intellectual-property-issues-recent
MGMT 520 Week 4 Course Project contacts, real Property or
Intellectual property issues (Apple) NEW

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 5 Case Study meritor savings bank v.
Vinson NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-5-case-study-meritor-savings-
bank-v.-vinson-recent
MGMT 520 Week 5 Case Study meritor savings bank v. Vinson
NEW

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 5 Case Study (Jane Lifeguard, John,
Lionel and Evelyn Harrymore) NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-5-case-study-recent
Week 5 Case Study –
Jane worked at the local country club pool as a lifeguard, not a
swim teacher, for the summer of 2013. Jane was a public school
physical education teacher. The country club did not do a
background check or confirm any references when they hired
her. They relied on the “say-so” or Jane’s brother, a member of
the country club board of directors. The country club only did a
cursory internet search of the state’s Department of Education
website to verify that she had a valid teaching
certificate. When one of the swim instructors unexpectedly
quite one day, she took over the class. Initially, the class went
well. Eventually, Jane also took over coaching the club’s
competitive swim team. When she became the swimming
coach, Jane effectively stopped “teaching” the swim
classes. Instead, she had all the swimmers in the classes do
races and train for competitive meets during the 30 minute
lessons. Jane had done this many times during the
summer. Her boss, the country club director, knew this and, as
the swim team was winning, ignored complaints from parents

and students. Jane raced with the swimmers and pushed the
winners out of the way when they tried to touch the side of the
pool so that Jane’s team would win each time. This was not the
first time that Jane had injured swimmers. Last year, she was
arrested for physically abusing a child she coached at her
school. Although the criminal charges were dropped, Jane is on
administrative leave from her public school job until an
administrative hearing with the state Department of Education
can be held in the fall. The incident was reported in several
local papers, and her administrative suspension is listed on the
state’s database.
Several of the children, ages 6-8 reported to their parents that
they had been physically assaulted by Jane while in swim class
for not “working hard enough!” The children had bruises on
their shoulders. In addition, Jane began “approaching” an 18
year old college student who worked as a lifeguard and assisted
Jane with the coaching. Over time, Jane’s “advances” toward the
young man became very aggressive. Jane continued even
though the young man asked him to stop. In fact, after the
young man told Jane to stop as he felt harassed, Jane hired
another lifeguard to assist him with the coaching. The country
club director was aware of this situation, but as the swim team
was winning, he took the position that it was an interpersonal
issue that the two should workout among themselves.
Several parents brought suit against the local country club, Jane
and the country club director. The young life guard has also
brought suit. The local country club pool alleges that they are
not liable. Discuss the liability issues, agency issues, and all
defenses available to the local country club pool.
John, Lionel and Evelyn Harrymore, siblings and actors, decide
to retire after years on the road. They remember a town in
Illinois they were familiar with from their travels. From the

internet, they learn of a farm a few miles outside of town that
seems ideal. There is a great house, and lots of land. The
Harrymores wish to convert the farm to a restaurant-hotel with
a dinner theater. They contact the realtor by phone, and make
arrangements to buy the parcel. The Harrymores plan on
traveling to Illinois prior to the closing to look things over, but
are unable to do so due to their touring schedule. The realtor,
whose commission is technically paid by the proceeds to the
seller, and who has a listing contract with the seller, advises the
Harrymores that she will handle everything. Illinois custom,
law and practice does not require a purchaser of land to have
an attorney. The realtor does only the bare minimum needed
for title to transfer to the Harrymores. On their behalf, she only
has a minimal title search and minimal inspections done, and
she obtains a minimal coverage title insurance policy. As the
area near the farm was once occupied by a large chemical plant,
when the realtor represents local purchasers, as a precaution,
she advises the buyers to get the maximum possible title search
and title insurance, and to get all possible inspections done. It
is her regular practice to caution local purchasers that she
represents about the former chemical plant.
After closing on the property, the Harrymores learn of the old
chemical plant. They seek your advice as to their liability and
the liability of any other parties.

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 5 Course Project Employment Law
Issues (Apple) NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-5-course-project-employment-
law-issues-recent
MGMT 520 Week 5 Course Project Employment Law Issues
(Apple) NEW

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 6 Case Assignment Case 24-5 United
States v. Microsoft Corporation NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-6-case-assignment-case-24-5-
united-states-v.-microsoft-corporation-recent
WEEK SIX CASE ASSIGNMENT: CASE 24-5
United States v. Microsoft Corporation
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit 253 F.3d 34
(2001)
The authors recommend a close reading of the facts of United
States v.
Microsoft set out earlier in this chapter. Section 2 of the
Sherman Act makes it
unlawful for a firm to “monopolize.” The offense of
monopolization has two
elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant
market and (2) the
willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as
distinguished from growth or
development as a consequence of a superior product, business
acumen, or historic
accident.

The district court found that Microsoft possessed monopoly
power in the market
for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Focusing primarily
on Microsoft’s
efforts to suppress Netscape Navigator’s threat to its operating
systems monopoly,
the court also found that Microsoft maintained its power not
through competition
on the merits but through unlawful means. Microsoft
challenged both conclusions
on appeal.
Per Curiam (by the Whole Court of Appeals)
13 388 U.S. 365 (1967). We begin by considering whether
Microsoft possesses monopoly power and finding
that it does, we turn to the question [of] whether it maintained
this power through
anticompetitive means. Agreeing with the District Court that
the company behaved
anticompetitively and that these actions contributed to the
maintenance of its
monopoly power, we affirm the court’s finding of liability for
monopolization.
Monopoly Power
While merely possessing monopoly power is not itself an
antitrust violation, it is a
necessary element of a monopolization charge. The Supreme
Court has defined
monopoly power as the power to control prices or exclude
competition. More
precisely, a firm is a monopolist if it can profitably raise prices
substantially above
the competitive level[;] where [there is] evidence that a firm
has in fact probably
done so, the existence of monopoly power is clear. Because

such direct proof is
only rarely available, courts more typically examine market
structure in search of
circumstantial evidence of monopoly power. Under this
structural approach
monopoly power may be inferred from a firm’s possession of a
dominant share of a
relevant market that is protected by entry barriers.
“Entry barriers” are factors (such as certain regulatory
requirements) that prevent
new rivals from timely responding to an increase in price above
the competitive
level. The District Court considered these structural factors and
concluded that
Microsoft possesses monopoly power in a relevant market.
Defining the market as
Intel-compatible PC operating systems, the District Court found
that Microsoft has
a greater than 95% share. It also found the company’s market
position protected
by a substantial entry barrier.
Microsoft argues that the District Court incorrectly defined the
relevant market. It
also claims that there is no barrier to entry in that market.
Alternatively, Microsoft
argues that because the software industry is uniquely dynamic,
direct proof, rather
than circumstantial evidence, more appropriately indicates
whether it possesses
monopoly power. Rejecting each argument, we uphold the
District Court’s finding
of monopoly power in its entirety.
Microsoft’s pattern of exclusionary conduct could only be
rational if the firm knew

that it possessed monopoly power. It is to that conduct that we
now turn.
Provisions in Microsoft’s agreements licensing Windows to
[computer makers]
reduce usage share of Netscape’s browser and, hence, protect
Microsoft’s
operating system monopoly.
Therefore, Microsoft’s efforts to gain market share in one
market (browsers)
served to meet the threat to Microsoft’s monopoly in another
market (operating
systems) by keeping rival browsers from gaining the critical
mass of users
necessary to attract developer attention away from Windows as
the platform for
software development.
We conclude that Microsoft’s commingling of browser and
nonbrowser code has an
anticompetitive effect; the commingling deters computer
makers from preinstalling rival browsers, thereby reducing the
rivals’ usage share and, hence,
developers’ interest in rivals.
By ensuring that the majority of all [ISP] subscribers are
offered [Internet
Explorer] either as the default browser or as the only browser,
Microsoft’s deals
with the [ISP] clearly have a significant effect in preserving its
monopoly.
Microsoft’s exclusive deals with the [Internet software vendors]
had a substantial
effect in further foreclosing rival browsers from the market.
Judgment in favor of the United States (plaintiff) affirming the
U.S. District Court
decision that Microsoft did possess and maintain monopoly

power in the market for
Intel-compatible operating systems. An appellate court
reversed other holdings of
the district court and remanded these matters for further
proceedings. Case Questions
1. What monopolistic acts did Microsoft do/was guilty of? 2.
3.
4. What did the court find was the “relevant market?” Why were
other markets
deemed not relevant.
How did copyright and or patent law claims play a role in this
case?
What did the various courts hold and/or find? What was the
basis for the
various appeals and reversals?

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 6 Case Study utah pie v continental
baking NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-6-case-study-utah-pie-v-
continental-baking-recent
MGMT 520 Week 6 Case Study utah pie v continental baking
NEW

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 7 Case Study FaceSpace (Paul and
Thomas Geoffries) NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-7-case-study-facespace-recent
PART A
Paul and Thomas Geoffries, brothers, are college students and
web designers. While at the University of Megalopolis, a
private, for-profit college in the “Quad State” area, they started
an online chat service called FaceSpace. Paul attended and
resided at the college’s campus in the State of
Quadrahenria. Thomas, who was on probation during college
for a low level felony drug conviction, could not be a resident
student and took classes at the campus in the Commonwealth of
New Guernsey campus. The chat service began by putting
information from school’s student directory online, and
offering blog, chat and message board features. FaceSpace was
such a hit that within a year, the school advised the brothers
that they had to remove FaceSpace from the university’s server
as it was utilizing too many resources. This was not a problem
as the Geoffries found advertisers, so they were able to move
FaceSpace to a private server without charging user fees. In
fact, FaceSpace was earning so much revenue that the Geoffries
brothers were able to pay themselves, and the six friends that
helped them operate it salaries. The Geoffries brothers are

graduating from the University of Megalopolis, and will be
attending separate graduate programs. Paul will attend
Quadrahenria State University, and Thomas the College of New
Guernsey. As FaceSpace is so successful, the brothers not only
plan to expand it to the two new colleges that they are
attending, but to as many other colleges within the four states
comprising the “Quad State” area as possible. They even have
hopes of “going national.” As part of their plan to expand to
other campuses, they expect to recruit a student from each of
the new schools “to get them in.” They wish to formalize
FaceSpace by organizing it as a proper business. The brothers
would like to maintain a majority interest in the business, give
about 20 percent to the six friends from their undergraduate
days that helped them run the service, and use the remaining
interest in the business to attract other investors and use
employee incentives.
The Geoffries seek your advice on (a) the form of business they
should use, (b) who might have a claim on the business, and (c)
how they might protect themselves from claims regarding a
computerized internet platform.
PART B
FaceSpace has been a phenomenal success for over ten (10)
years. They are now a worldwide social networking
phenomenon. Over the years and the various incarnations of
the business enterprise, they are now a corporation with just
under 100 shareholders. In anticipation of a public offering,
they have just completed a private stock offering and allowed
several of the initial equity owners to exercise stock
options. The Geoffries brothers each exercised options to
purchase 10,000 shares for $5 a share. Also in anticipation of
the public offering, pursuant to the early intervention drug plea
he made while in college, Thomas Geoffries had his conviction

expunged. In addition, FaceSpace sold $10 million in two (2)
year advertising contracts, which would allow the clients to
backout for a 90 percent refund. These unusual contracts
increased their current revenue by fifteen (15%) percent. As
FaceSpace is such a phenomenon, the hype regarding the public
offering has been enormous. Even college students are
attempting to but the stock. Days before the public offering, the
following occurred: (a) a broker at their underwriter,
Silversmith & Baggs, showed a pension fund director a draft
version of the prospectus; (b) Paul sold 1000 shares of the
stock that he purchased through the the stock option plan for
$45 a share, telling the private investor that the issue price for
the public offering would be at least $60 a share; (c) several of
the people who bought stock in the private offering sold it at a
nice profit. The initial public stock offering had many
problems. The NASDAQ computer system could, which was
implemented pursuant to a recent regulation change by the
Securities And Exchange Commission (SEC) could not keep up
with the demand. The system, could not accurately report the
price, and many day traders, including Big Profit Hedge Fund,
lost money. Big Profit had formally filed its opposition to the
SEC’s regulation when it was proposed. After the public
offering was completed, FaceSpace stock stabilized at $40 a
share, well below the initial offering price of $70 a share. In
light of the fiasco of the public offering, and the bad press that it
generated, users began to drop FaceSpace in favor of a new,
upstart rival service offered by TronCom. Fearful that the new
advertisers would back out of their contracts, the Geoffries
brothers sold a great deal of their stock.
What issues does FaceSpace, its officers and stockholders face
under (a) state securities law, (b) the Securities Act of 1933,
and (b) the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 7 Case Study US vs mc Dermott NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-7-case-study-us-vs-mc-dermott-
recent
MGMT 520 Week 7 Case Study US vs mc Dermott NEW

DEVRY MGMT 520 Week 7 Final Course Project (Apple) NEW
devry/mgmt-520-week-7-final-course-project-recent
MGMT 520 Week 7 Final Course Project (Apple) NEW

MGMT 520 Entire Course NEW

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to MGMT 520 Entire Course NEW

Similar to MGMT 520 Entire Course NEW (18)

More from shyamuopuoptwelve

More from shyamuopuoptwelve (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

MGMT 520 Entire Course NEW