Contract Law Cases - Essay Example

Question 1 a) 15 U.S.C §18 is a United States Code that governs the acquisition of another company’s stock by a holding company b) U.S.C stands for United States Code c) 18 is a subsection of the U.S.C 15 which regulates commerce and trade and mainly deals with the acquisition of a corporation’s shares. d) 42 C.F.R is a code of federal regulation that governs public health e) C.F.R stands for Code of Federal Regulations f) 42 C.F.R §99 is a subsection of the code of federal regulation that impose confidentiality of drugs abuse and alcohol patients g) U.S stands for the federal court of United States h) 578 refers to a ruling made by the United States Supreme court that forbids the teaching of evolution science in elementary and secondary schools (Thomson 1) i) 1987 is the year that the United States Supreme court made a ruling that forbade the teaching of evolution science in secondary and elementary schools. j) F. Supp stands for federal supplement that refers to decisions made by district courts of the United States k) E.D. stands for the education board l) N.E 2d.is used when citing North Eastern and North Eastern second reporter m) Ind. Ct. App means Indiana Court of Appeal n) 403 U.S. 578 (1987): 403 refers to a federal case. 2. An employment-at-will is a relationship where there is a definite ending period. 3. LLC provide limited liability 4. U.S companies that break laws while operating in foreign countries are subject to full prosecution, fines and imprisonment in the U.S. 5. An indictment is a document issued by a grand jury. 6. Accountants will sign off on anything 7. Equal Pay Act prohibits seniority systems. 8. All securities provided are exempt securities. 9. The interstate exemption does not require that hundred percent of income is earned in the resident state. 10. The transaction is a merger. No. 2 Natalie Albers and BrendenWolinski are already in contract. The contract is of sale of goods. Natalie had made an offer to buy the 240 Z car from Brenden. The seller, Brenden, had already accepted the offer, and Natalie had paid part of the price. The right of ownershipof the car had already passed to Natalie and Brenden had no right to resell the car to another buyer. According to the law of contract, an offer once accepted cannot be canceled (Jennings 114). Acceptance formally starts the contract. Any party that attempts to withdraw the offer by making a different offer or by simply withdrawing from the contract is in breach of the contract. The injured party has the right to enforce his rights under the contract. Therefore, Brenden is in violation of the sales contract and Natalie has a right to take legal action against Brenden. The statute of fraud governs contracts that involve the sale of goods worth over five hundred dollars. The case in question involves the sale of the car at a price of Four thousand five hundred dollars. Since the price is above five hundred dollars, then the statute of fraudregulates the deal (Warner 1).Natalie, the aggrieved party, can sue Brenden for damages. However, Natalie must prove to the court that she indeed suffered a loss as a result of a violation of the contract by Brenden. Additionally, for the court to grant damages, Natalie must establish the monetary value of the loss suffered as a result of Brenden’s actions. No. 3 Federal court has no original jurisdiction. The state court had the authority to hear the case. The state and federal courts are not similar. The federal judicial system defends essential human rights and has the responsibility to interpret federal laws (Jennings 138). Federal courts can only solve other cases in extraordinary circumstances. The state courts, on the other hand, interpret state laws. The two companies are registered in Ohio and operate only in Ohio; hence they are regulated by the state laws. The state courts have an original jurisdiction to handle the case. However, the federal court does not have original jurisdiction in the case because the case involves neither denial of human rights nor interpretation of federal laws. The plaintiff is usually the injured party and is the one that takes a matter to the court. In our case Rensberger Lumber, Inc. is the aggrieved party and hence is the plaintiff. The party that is being chargedwith violating another person’s rights is the defendant. In this case Perry Developers, Inc. is being charged with breakingthe agreement to pay the amount owing and, therefore, Perry Developers is the defendant. If the court of law hears and makes a ruling, but due to some reason one of the parties is not pleased with the resolution then such a party can appeal. In this case Rensberger Lumber Inc. is not pleased with the court’s decision and has appealed, therefore, is the appellant. The court of appeal can reverse the lower court’s decision if it establishes the lower court’s decision failed to serve justice on the two parties. No 4 Alex Kriadis and Alex Friedman are in a partnership. A partnership is a relationship that exists between persons carrying on a profit-making business (Ross 130). Partnerships have unlimited liability; liquidators can recover a partnership debt by seizing a partner’s personal property. Unlimited liability is a disadvantage because partners are forced to lose their personal property if the firm is insolvent. Partnerships exist for a limited period; they can be terminated due to a lapse of time, mutual agreement or bankruptcy of any of the partners. Lack of perpetuity is a drawback since minor issues can lead to the winding up of the firm. If the partners do not have a partnership agreement, then a partnership deed provides the terms of the partnership. The deed declares that profits should be shared equally among the partners and debts owing to creditors should be settled using the firm’s assets. In the case of a conflict between the two partners, they can use the New York Partnership Law to solve the dispute in a court of law. No 5 The employee can sue her employer. The employer has a liability under doctrine of owner occupier liability. The employer has a duty of care to the occupants of the manufacturing plant. The employer is liable for any loss or injury that takes place in the factory due to his negligence. In our case the company neglected its duty to inform the employee of the wet floor. The employer’s negligence led to injury of the worker. Therefore, the employee has the right to demand compensation in a court of law. No 6 The new offer by Mitchell is a counter offer. A counteroffer is an offer made subsequent to acceptance of the original offer. Itterminates the initial offer. Mitchell makes a counter offer and demands a payment of five thousand five hundred dollars from the original offer’s five thousand dollars. This new offer is a counter offer and comes into force once the contracting parties accept it. Tomasbi accepts the offer hence the new contract comes into force and extinguishes the original contract. Both parties must play their role as per the contract terms. Failure to fulfill the contractual obligations entitles the innocent party the right to enforce the contract through legal means. According to the new offer, Mitchell must complete the plumbing in the houses, and Tomasbi should pay Mitchell the agreed price of five thousand five hundred dollars. Tomasbi fails to pay Mitchell the agreed amount; hence Mitchell has the right to sue Tomasbi for the price. No 7 Dante is not liable for the rent and late penalty being claimed by the management. The lease contract clearly provided that Dante could end the offer anytime so long as he gave a ten day notice to the management. Dante complied and gave a notice to terminate the lease agreement to the young man. The young man had apparent authority. That is; Dante acted on the belief that the young man had been empowered to by the management to receive notices. The young man’s actions convince Dante that he had apparent authority to receive notices on behalf of the management.Furthermore, Dante had no means to prove that the young man had no power to receive notices. Additionally, he had no duty to demonstrate that the son had no authority. It is clear that the management of the storage facility had giventheir son the power to receive notices. In conclusion, Dante is not liable for the rent and late fee. No 8 Title VII forbids discrimination on the basis of race, age, and gender. It seeks to promote equal employment opportunities in all public organizations. The Act prohibits employers from discriminating a person with respect to his salary, conditions or privileges of employment due to that person’s sex, religion, nationality or race (Jennings 256). There is a problem in the City’s employment structure. The pay for administrative staff is high, and the management seems to employ white males only. The maintenance staff’s rate is low, and the employees there are nearly all female. There exist gender and racial discrimination. The management of the City not only discriminates on gender but also on race. The management uses race to employ its workers; it favors the whites and gives them a huge paycheck. Moreover, the management offers less paying jobs to females. There should be equal representation in employment. The authority denies women a chance to serve as administrative employees. Additionally, the managementmakes hiring and compensation decisions based on employee’s gender and race. There is inequity in the terms of employment. Racial and gender discrimination in the employment structure is evident. Therefore, there is a violation of Title VII Act of civil rights, and the three employees can take the matter to a court of law. Works Cited Jennings, Marianne M.Business: its legal, ethical, and global environment. New York: Cengage Learning, 2008. Print. Ross, Jefferson. Introduction to law. Texas: Longman Press, 2009. Print. Thomson, Reuters. 15 U.S.C. § 18 : US Code - Section 18: Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another. Thomson, 2014.Retrieved from :http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/1/18Accessed 13 December 2014. Warner, Richard. Statute of Frauds. Richard Warner, 2003. Retrieved from: http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rwarner/classes/contracts/statute_of_frauds_notes.htm Accessed 13 December 2014. Read More