1. Corporations Madison Foods is a close corporation--shares are held by members of a family or few persons, and likely an "S" corporation, bound by the Subchapter S Revision Act of 1982. Kato's use of company funds is not covered by the business judgement rule since his decision did not comply with his fiduciary duties. He is in violation of his duty of care--to act in good faith and use prudent business judgement, and his duty of loyalty-- to subordinate his own interests to those of the corporation. Claims can be made against him by other officers of the corporation as officers to redress the wrongs,.
Contract law promotes commerce, by guaranteeing that the law protects them. If a party fails on the agreement, the plaintiff has the right to take them to court. The UCC lets the commercial party decides on what options are available if the agreement is breached by any party. If they haven’t made them, courts will, giving the injured party the incidental damages, an sometimes consequential damages. This is lost profits from business being closed, because a seller did not bring the machine for a job.
Case Analysis: Baker v Osborne Development Corporation Amelia Smith LS311-06 Business Law Kaplan University February 14, 2012 The new homeowners would be able to sue the homebuilder, Osborne Development Corporation. The California Court of Appeals found that the trial court’s decision was correct and that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable thus making the arbitration agreement unenforceable. The reason that the trial courts found the arbitration agreement was procedurally substantively unconscionable was the fact that the agreement was not present in the terms of any of the contracts between the buyer and the builder. The homebuyers were not given the application of warranty by HBW until about a day or so before the scheduled close of escrow and the terms of the arbitration agreement were not present within the application. NCR Corporation v Korala Associates was a case that was concerning the unauthorized copying of computer software by KAL.
Regarding the case of Mr. Bilbo Baggins litigation against Orc Industries Corporation for wrongful dismissal, there are quite a number of relevant legal principles and concepts that apply to the plaintiff’s case. Firstly, when Mr. Baggins was terminated by Orc Industries Corp. they failed to provide him with reasonable notice, which would imply that the company intended to terminate Mr. Baggins on the grounds of just cause. Just cause is a term that is applied when a company intends to terminate an employee for “Employee conduct that amounts to a fundamental breach of employment contract”. More specifically, just cause exists when an employee is guilty of one or more of the following; a serious misconduct (or several minor misconducts over a period of time), habitual neglect of duty, incompetence, willful disobedience, or incompatible conduct. (DuPlessis, O'Byrne, Enman & Gunz, 2011) Orc Industries Corp. however, did not cite any other reasons for terminating Mr. Baggins apart from “dishonesty, and coming to work drunk”.
It appears that the employer intentionally disposed of the parts. The disposal of these parts may prejudice the client's ability to recover in any product liability lawsuits against the corporations involved in the manufacture, distribution, inspection, or servicing of the conveyor. • What section of Am.
If Pat does files a suit of wrongful discharge, we will be able to argue that he was fully aware of the at will employment policy. If he argues that reception of the personnel manual is an implied contract, we will have precedent from the Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc. case, 819 A.2d 703 (Vt. 2002), in which the judge ruled that it was not a breach of contract when another company fired an employee without cause (Jennings, 2006). In this same case the judge argued that it is the right of the company to modify the employee agreement (or personnel manual). Our personnel manual is ambiguous (as are most manuals). Any attempt to challenge the at will status will be difficult because it will most likely be left up to the interpretation of the judge or
Wal-Mart believed that the Byrd’s failed to present enough valid evidence to the jury that Mrs. Byrd’s injuries were in deed from Wal-Mart’s negligence. According to the case summary of Byrd vs. Wal-Mart Inc it states that “In order to rely on res ipsa loquitur, a plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) an injury of the type that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the injury was caused by an instrumentality in the defendant's exclusive control; and (3) the injury was not caused by an act or omission of the
Lucky Cheng’s has been in operation since 1993. Lucky Cheng is the plaintiff and Zagat Survey is the defendant. The problem in this case is Lucky Cheng’s allegation that Zagat Survey made disparaging statements about their restaurant that hurt their business. Being that a disparaging statement is one that is untrue and “made by a person or business about the products, services, property, or reputation of another business” (Cheeseman, 2013), it is presumably fair to say that Lucky Cheng’s felt statements such as, “God knows ‘you don’t go for the food’ at this East Village Asian-Eclectic – rather you go to ‘gawk’ at the ‘hilarious’ ‘cross-dressing’ staff who ‘tell dirty jokes,’ perfect ‘impromptu floor shows’ and offer ‘lap dances for dessert,’” (Gregorian,2004) contributed to their 35% drop in business (Gilbert,2005). In order for the courts to favor Lucky Cheng’s allegation, proof that the statements made by Zagat Survey were untrue, published as untrue, knowingly not true, and that the statements were done in malice (Cheeseman, 2013) must be shown to the court.
2. Hooters does not hire males for the job it calls “Hooters Girl.” Does this practice violate U.S. equal employment opportunity laws? Explain. Sept. 1994 EEoc investigators found Hooters’ employment practices violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination in employment of the basis of sex Hooters’ discrimination against males is unlawful EEOC said that Hooters’ business was serving food and “no physical trait unique to women is required to serve food and drink to customers in a restaurant.” 3. Assess the probable causes of the alleged sexual harassment of Hooters employees.
It begins with the lawsuit against brought against McDonald’s by Stella Lieback who sued for third-degree burns she suffered after spilling a scalding cup of coffee that was served to her in their drive-thru. Stella Lieback’s suit against McDonalds created a media storm and at the time it was hard to find someone who had not heard about the case. As a result of her injuries, 79-year-old Stella endured a lengthy stay in hospital, where she required surgery, skin grafts and therapy, for which she was awarded over $2 million - but she was left with a damages award of less than $200,000. She eventually settled with McDonald's out of court. The Lieback story is used in the film to illustrate how big corporations used the case as a catalyst for tort reform.