Hugh McBride is the newly appointed Chief Executive Officer of McBride Financial Services. The company offers one-stop decreased mortgage services within the Dakota’s, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. Huge McBride has been involved within discussions that maybe described as unethical or illegal in the scenario. Presented in this paper are the study of problems and issues that McBride Financial services could experience because of the lack of impecunious decisions carried out by the company’s CEO. Hugh McBride will address who the company’s stakeholders are, define the end-state vision, identify and evaluate alternatives, identify and access the risk of the alternatives, recommend optional solutions, create and implement solutions, and to access the outcomes.
Factors for consideration a. law’s non-logical implications in interpretation what parties would’ve agreed to (ex. Haines: duration and scope of contract) - policy: at-will doctrine in employment: policy - would’ve agreed to terms had they anticipated situation - had in mind, but didn’t express it b. context - what is the objective of the contract? Is it ambiguous? Ex. Spaulding v. Morse (369): stop yearly payment to trust during time in armed services - enforce according to terms if unambiguous, consider context if terms are ambiguous - not only context at time of contract formation, but also what happened AFTER ⇨ changed circumstances - why look at context?
Constructive discharge would apply if the company implemented a change that is so intolerable a reasonable employee is forced to quit or resign, that company would be guilty of illegally firing the employee. Constructive discharge is not relative in this case for these reasons: * Although the change was recent it was not so intolerable that the employee
Armstrong’s failures to meet their obligation gives GCI three options: they may reject the entire shipment of goods, accept the shipment of goods as is, or accept any number of commercial units and reject the rest of the goods, (Melvin 2011, pg. 192). One right that is available to Armstrong is referred to as the cure. The cure is the UCC’s way of promoting the completion of an original contract. It would allow Armstrong (the seller) the right or opportunity to repair or replace any goods that the buyer (GCI) has rejected as long as the time period for performance has not
However, Block argument that dissolution of the firm releases him from any liability in malpractice occurring after dissolution, but dissolution does not discharge anyone from obligations previous to the dissolution, only to obligations happen after the dissolution. His argument can be effective if he is in normal business relationships between partnerships and third persons. However, the court stated that the relationship between a law partnership and its clients is not a normal business relationship; it is a trust relationship and requires a high degree of reliability and good
October 9, 2013 With managements recent restructuring and cost-cutting measures, Pharma Co. is experiencing problems accounting for the restructuring costs of terminating Plant A as of December 31, 2011. The termination of Plant A will bring several significant costs we will need to account for. One of the first costs we will encounter is the cost of terminating the lease with a fee of $1.3 million. On January 31, 2012 we are planning to vacate the facility and at the same time sign the lease termination agreement. Under ASC 420-10-25-12, a liability for costs to terminate a contract should be recognized when the entity terminates the contract in accordance with the contract terms.
Legal Encounter 1: Facts: • NewCorp did have Pat sign an understanding that they are at will. However NewCorp also has a policy in place that states a process for dismissing employees for any give reason. • Pat did sign the statement that he understood that NewCorp is an at will employer. However Pat has reason to believe that he is being targeted for some comments he made at a recent school board meeting however he has little to stand on since no one knew he was a NewCorp employee What liability and rights do NewCorp and Pat have in this situation? What legal principles—such as statutory or case law—support those liabilities and rights?
The dispute must be in reference to a customer’s disregard for all terms, conditions set forth, and agreed upon by the customer prior to entering a business agreement with Riordan. Personal disputes or conflicts will not be covered under the ADR process unless said dispute results in the disregard for all rules and regulations. In the event the ADR process was facilitated because of a dispute, Riordan and the customer agree to participate in mediation arbitration (medarb). The medarb will be presided over by a neutral party who must be agreed upon by both parties. During the medarb, each side will communicate the dispute and attempt to reach a voluntary agreement.
The partners should be of like mind and have a contract that states the percentage of profits, losses, debts and day to day duties that each partner is responsible for. The contract should also state what happens if one of the partners dies or retires. In a partnership you are legally responsible for your partner's actions and can be held labile for these actions. Partnerships report their earnings, losses and deduction for the business operations, but the business itself doesn't pay taxes. The business "passes through" it's earnings or losses to its partners.
Task 1 There are 7 principles of project management according to PRINCE2: First, Business justification means that every project should be a profitable investment. Projects that are no longer giving monetary support should immediately be scrapped to prevent further leakage of money and energy. Second, defined roles and responsibilities means that project members should understand clearly their tasks and the importance of their commitment towards their roles. If no one knows what responsibilities are they supposed to perform, the project will easily become a failure. The third principle; Manage by exception means that no project sponsor should interfere with the activities of the project manager where he or she should be left undisturbed