Bickham Vs. Washington Bank & Trust Company

Review the facts provided and the sample contract. What provisions of the contract could you cite to support an argument that it is not in Big Banks best interest to rescind the contract? What facts could you cite to support an argument that Big Bank be responsible for some of these issues and/or not in compliance with the contract?

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting was a Supreme Court decision regarding the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which penalized businesses and proprietors in Arizona that hired illegal immigrants, and required that businesses check the citizenship status of their potential employees using the e-verify system. Various civil rights groups as well as businesses, collectively titled “Chamber of Commerce”, claimed the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act preempted these statutes in the Arizona law. The state law was upheld in 2011.

The following case American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Kennedy & Crawford, 103 Va. 171 (Va.1904) it is expressed that; where the consideration for the promise of one party is the promise of the other party, there must be absolute mutuality of engagement, so that each party has the right to hold the other to a positive agreement. Both parties must be bound or neither is bound. A party making a promise is bound to nothing until a promisee, within a reasonable time, engages to do, or else do or begins to do, the thing which is the condition of the first promise. Until such engagement or such doing, the promisor may withdraw his promise, because there is no mutuality, and therefore no consideration for it.

The Marshfield clinic is a health care system founded in 1916 comprised largely in Wisconsin (Marshfieldclinic.org, 2012). It has 2 hospitals, 53 community care centers, and has about 800 physicians in more than 80 medical specialties and subspecialties-from cardiology, to neurology, to dentistry - provide care at over 50 locations

This case analyses and discusses about the bank of America and Wells Fargo against the City of Miami. The Bank of America brought the case back to court after it was ruled against them in the first Federal appeal. According to the case, a plaintiff is considered to be “aggrieved” under the title VII with a condition that the person falls under title VII “zone of interest”. The two banks were alleged to be in the discrimination of the African-Americans and the borrowers from the Latino origins. There was a discriminated against issuance of mortgages which would likely lead to a foreclosure. The city lowered the tax revenues and increased spending towards the affected areas. The dimension of this lawsuit was using the fair house act (FHA) of the 1968 civil rights. This lawsuit helps in preventing discrimination of selling, renting and financing the house. The two questions presented include; after there was a limitation in the lawsuit regarding “aggrieved persons”, was there a requirement by the congress that the plaintiff was able to plead more than what the article III stated? The second question was, does the proximity causes require more than the actual possibility that the people defending are protecting the remote plaintiff 's loss of money through contingency chains? This essay aims to discuss the lawsuit and analyze the case fully together with predictions of the results, which might come out at the end of the lawsuit. The analysis of this case entails the

The legal principle that allowed this was corporate entity status. This makes corporations legal entities and allows them to sue or be sued. Because The United Federated Loan Company is a corporation, it has the power to sue the county. The legal principle that allowed this was corporate entity status. This makes corporations legal entities and allows them to sue or be sued. Because The United Federated Loan Company is a corporation, it has the power to sue the county. The legal principle that allowed this was corporate entity status. This makes corporations legal entities and allows them to sue or be sued. Because The United Federated Loan Company is a corporation, it has the power to sue the county. The legal principle that allowed this was

Citizens State Bank of Waverly was founded in 1907 by several individual investors. The Graham family, specifically Daniel Graham and his brother Mark took, over ownership in 1951. Eventually in 1985, the bank was sold to Catherine “Birdie” Jackson (formerly a Graham), Kim Jackson (wife and husband) and Daniel Graham. It has always been a locally owned, independent community bank with immense focus on customer service. At the end of 2012, the bank was purchased by Cattail Bancshares, Inc., a holding company formed by Robert “Bob” Meyerson and Suzanne Meyerson of Atwater, MN. This was viewed positively by the communities served, in that it would remain a true family owned, community bank.

Spangler v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines illustrates at least some of the difficulties for employers in dealing with FMLA regulations. Due to the Court's interpretation of the FMLA notice requirement, a manager might cope with Spangler differently depending on when that manager is allowed to manage Spangler. The Court's decision regarding Spangler was a mixed bag, agreeable and understandable in some respects but unduly burdensome on employers in other respects. In their current state, the FMLA regulations are considerably troublesome and burdensome for employers.

Home Depot was claimed to receive summary disposition by the plaintiff who is a former employee. According to what was written in the report, “The employee was terminated after he kissed a married employee he supervised while the two were not at the store.” The plaintiff, Chris Goodrich, did a lawsuit against a home improvement store. As stated in the report, the plaintiff was complaining that he was terminated in violation of the Whistleblower's Protection Act (WPA) and the § 8 of the Bullard-Plawecki employee right to know act which is “an act to permit employees to review personnel records; to provide criteria for the review; to prescribe the information which may be contained in personnel records; and to provide penalties.” There were two basic allegations that employer did that resulted in the lawsuit.

Wells Fargo Bank filed a lawsuit, in September 2014, against the accounting firm Worley Stroud & Associates PC claiming professional negligence. Wells Fargo accused Worley Stroud and two of its representatives of causing over $25 million worth of damages through their accounting errors. In March 2008, Wells Fargo agreed to make an asset-based loan to an agricultural commodity company, by the name of West Plains Co., where the amount of money lent would be dependent on the amount of assets the company held. However, Wells Fargo says that they lent $20 million more than they otherwise would have lent. Harry Worley and DeWitt Stroud of Worley Stroud & Associates PC were responsible for auditing West Plains’ financial statements from at least

Federal deposit Insurance policy was unsound but not corrected and that led to serious moral hazard problem:

The opinion in Bank of New York Mellon Corp. v. C.I.R. affirmed two separate lower court decisions that relied on the economic substance doctrine to reject corporate taxpayers’ attempts to claim foreign tax credits based on a series of complex transactions, including a STARS transaction case.

In the Case study assignment I am going to talk about the case BENAY v. WARNER BROS ENTERTAINMENT INC. this case deals with the two brothers Aaron and Matthew Benay suing Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc., Radar Pictures Inc, Bedford Falls Productions Inc, Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz, and John Logan over the coping of the screenplay The Last Samurai. The brothers wrote a screenplay in the late 1990’s and had it copyrighted in 2001. The screenplay was then “pitched” by phone to the president of the company that produced the film The last Samurai, which is also the same name of the screenplay by the Benays, Bedford Falls in 2000. It was informed to the Benays’ agent that Bedford Falls, “had decided to ‘pass’ becasuse it already had a similar project in development. (Benay, pg. 1)” This led to the Benays claiming that important

. Fraud occurs when someone acts with the intent to cause damage by misrepresentation. Negligence, however, is failing to act in a way that any reasonable person would in the same situation. Fraud and negligence are both considered torts because they are a civil wrong, which is when one does wrong to another person, and as a result you can sue for their actions. In Mona’s case she was clearly negligent for the audit reports and preparing the financial statements for Cardozo Corporation because she was not aware of the situation or the bank in this case and she did not have the intent to deceive. The verdict was decided in the Barclays Bank v. Grant Thornton case. In this case the auditors were accused for negligence in the production for the company, of non statutory audit reports given to third

Great Post! I used to work for a bank called Omni National Bank. The President and many other executives went to prison for mortgage, wire, accounting and loan fraud. The president went to prison for five years and was fined over $6 million dollars. A bank called Capital Bank acquired some of our NC location and a year later many of us were let go and given a severance package. I am glad that there are laws are now for loans. Many people lost their homes because they were not qualified to begin with.