Bemis “released” Bannister to seek employment with one exception—Mondi Packaging. Mondi declined to offer Bannister a job solely because of the covenant not to compete. In other words, Bemis asserted its rights under the non-compete provision as it related to Mondi and was thus obligated to pay Bannister his salary. She refused to pay him the 18 moth’s theses situation was a material breach of the agreement. They should pay him the 18 months to settle the case.
The company had already gotten the other 100 families to accept the offer to buy their property. The city claimed their right of eminent domain on the remaining 15 families and ceased their properties. This action was the beginning of the court battles which eventually lead all the way up to the Supreme court hearing the case and deciding in favor of the City of New London, Connecticut. The main reason Pfizer was behind the whole issue was because “In 1998, the drug company Pfizer built a new plant in New London, Connecticut.” (Head) The pharmaceutical company thought with the additional business their plant might bring to the city that they'd be able to take the housing land and turn it into a commercial development property and sell it to other commercial developers to bring about more jobs, tax revenues, and businesses to the community in hopes of reviving the struggling city. Susette Kelo is the main proponent of the supreme court case, arguing on behalf of the home owners.
Terminal assigned its rights to Wells Fargo (plaintiff). Terminal never paid a portion of the $250,000. Brooks refused to make monthly payments and Wells Fargo sued. Parties moved for summary judgement. Court ruled in favor of Wells Fargo, brooks appealed ISSUE: Even though a company is acting in good faith should they be held liable for contract duties?
Explain. Would either party have any other defenses that would allow the contract to be avoided? No, because there was never a contract. Chou could however say that there was a mistake Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker on his part with the e-mail that he mistaken made the assumption that it
The answer here is a yes and no. The workers can legally strike because their contract had not been accepted. On the other strikers cannot block the entrance and exits
World War II War Bonds The United States government first started issuing war bonds in the War of 1812 to account for the $11 million raised by the public to help pay for the war (Wikipedia). The government, to help fund every major war since then that the United States has been involved with, has used war bonds. During the Second World War President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the first series of war bonds, “E”, to the American public to remove much needed cash from circulation and to help reduce the war-caused inflation. The U.S. government spent more than $300 billion to pay for the war effort, that translates to $4 trillion today (NWW2M). War bonds were essential to help pay for this debt, but not many people know how the bond buying
In this paper I am going to analyze an article from Ethics World website. The article is a report from the US Government Department of Justice that involved the pharmaceutical giant Allergan Inc. The Allergan Inc. creates the famous biological Botox treatment. The pharmaceutical plead guilty of promoting the biological drug for use without the approval of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). The Allergan Inc. Company paid 600 million dollar to give solution to the criminal activities and civil liabilities an issue create form the bad behavior and promotion of the Botox.
As the battle continues: USA vs. FDA Jason Murph Baker College With interest of the big investors Americans are kept in the background of the primary focus from the FDA. This is the claim made Gary Null in the documentary “The War on Health”. The history of Null’s credibility comes from his profession in Dietetics-Nutrition. He is also a talk show host for Progressive Radio Network (PRN.fm). Null owns Gary Null & Associates, a company that markets dietary supplements as well as a health food store in New York City In 2010, Null claimed that he was sickened and nearly killed by his own dietary supplements.
This paper will focus on consequential effects of ethical and unethical financial reporting, and the cascading affects on all supporting investors of Riverside Bottling Company. Background Riverside Bottling Company has secured a substantial insurance loan, which requires the general ledger to maintain at least a $200,000 monthly balance to avoid penalty charges as specified in the loan agreement (Weygandt, 2008, p. 382). For the month ending June 30 the balance of cash resulted in a $120,000 deficit. As the assistant controller, I report the discrepancy to the financial vice president, Gena Schmitt. Gena instructs that the cash receipts ledger to remain open for an additional day, as a $150,000 payment will post to the bank on July One from Oconto Distributors, and recorded as part of June’s receivables, which fulfills the requirements of the loan agreement, but misrepresents true closing receivables (Weygandt, 2008, p. 382).
No one person or company and or organization should be allowed to discriminate against an individual on the basis of sexual orientation choice and they are most certainly not allowed to discriminate against an employee due to the way he/she decides to dress. More importantly when they are off the clock. This decision would be akin to firing a woman truck driver for wearing a flannel shirt and a pair of jeans while off-duty; this would be absurd, the decision to fire Oiler based on his choice of wardrobe when he off the clock is absurd and completely unwarranted. Oiler had a squeaky clean record during his many years working for Winn-Dixie; he was basically the perfect employee and to violate his employee rights and invade his privacy as the company did clearly shows a degree of narrow-mindedness and bigotry It would be easier to understand this decision, if Oiler had been dressing this way on the job due to the fact that many organizations must insist particular dress-codes but; even if this were the case, Oiler would have been given a warning and offered the chance to “conform” to policies, but they fired him based on his behavior off the job is a huge violation of numerous federal and state laws as well as his personal rights. If nothing else these four things will happen in lou of this event.