Business Law Case Summary

BIS did not breach duty of care because according to "N.Y. GOB. LAW 18-105: NY Code -Section 18-105: Duties of skiers"  10-11, each skier shall have the duty not to willfully stop on any slope or trail where such stopping is likely to cause a collision with other skiers or vehicles and to yield to other skiers when entering a trail or starting downhill. Craig neglected his duty to both.

Plaintiff does not need assistance from the Defendant for suit monies nor does the Defendant have the ability to pay for her attorney.

Bell Microproducts, Inc. mailed to McGurn an offer of employment that stated that if McGurn were terminated without cause during the first 12 months of employment, he would receive a severance package of $120,000. McGurn crossed out 12 and replaced it with 24, and signed the contract. Bell did not acknowledge the change that had been made to the contract and hired the applicant. McGurn was terminated without cause 13 months later.

Plaintiff claims false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff states he was arrested for criminal possession of marijuana however no marijuana was recovered. PO Hernandez, PO Bonet, and PO Heredia were members of the anti-crime in PSA 6. Officers observed via Viper camera plaintiff and two other apprehended individuals smoking marijuana in the park behind a housing project. Officers approached plaintiff and two individuals and conducted a stop and frisk. Officers did not recover any contraband or marijuana was recovered. Plaintiff and the two individuals were transported to the precinct where a bag of marijuana was recovered during a search at the precinct. Officers could not determine ownership of the marijuana therefore all three were

BMGT 380 Exam One Statutory Interpretation 1. Plain Meaning Rule: Courts are supposed to apply and interpret statutes (法令) according to their usual or ordinary meanings. 2. Legislative History (when 1 conflicts with 2，consider 2 first): if legislative history suggests a different outcome than plain meaning rule, the court then will mostly likely do what the legislative history suggests.

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

The director, who is the acting arbitrator, conducted a separate meeting with the Rehabilitation Services department and the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) managers. Thereafter, the director conducted his own investigation by talking to the involved employees to determine the root of the disagreement. The director’s investigation revealed that the rehab employee went to her manager when she witnessed the ICU employee of allegedly doing an inappropriate patient care while the rehab employee was looking through the glass window of the room and saw a reflection of the alleged wrongdoing from the metal paper towel dispenser. The rehab manager subsequently reported this apparent wrongdoing to the ICU manager with whom he expected to reprimand her employee

When the closing date arrived, Thomas, representing his un-incorporated business, did not have the funds.

Joseph purchased two commercial ovens for his restaurant and paid via Paypal. At first, the ovens seemed acceptable however it soon became apparent that the hinges on the doors weren’t installed properly making it impossible for the doors to close properly. After contacting the seller and alerting them of the issue they have offered to have a repairman go onsite and correct the defect however Joseph wants to return the ovens and receive a refund in full. Joseph would like to know if there is a warranty and if so, what the terms are. He would also like to know which remedy is more likely under the circumstances.

3. How could a section 1983 action be brought where an officer in the locker room preparing for off duty accidentally discharged his revolver, striking a custodian? What would be the justification for a lawsuit in this case? The officer was wrong in this accidental discharge. Police are responsible for the fire arm and even if the officer didn’t shoot someone you are supposed to be able to control the fire arm. This was an accident not meant to hurt someone but if you can’t control a gun you shouldn’t be able to carry one. Negligence like this could kill someone on accident. Officers should treat every gun as they are dangerous because like shown in this case they can hurt someone. He could say it was an accident but if I was the custodian

Dismissing Smith based solely on a poor attitude without providing evidence that she is hurting departmental job performance or other employees could end the company up in court facing a wrongful discharge suit. It is the manager’s responsibility to interpret and enforce a disciplinary process or policy in a fair and consistent manner. Trent needs to start by determining a plan of action, one that balances the business necessities against worker rights and documenting complaints about lack of professionalism, cooperation, and teamwork. Disciplining can be a gray area without clarifying the rules and pre-determining the viable consequences for violations that are reasonable and defendable.

A Civil Action is a movie about a lawyer who investigates a court case about an issue going on within the drinking water of an area. The water seems to be causing kids cancer, Jan decided to take the case to court, to only end up realizing it’s going to take millions of dollars. He becomes obsessed with the case and ends up losing lots to try to figure it out. "A Civil Action Summary." SuperSummary Web. [1] The case ends up settling for $8million but the parents of the children aren’t satisfied because the didn’t get an apology, the whole case was never about the money for them. Jan ends up losing everything for this case and putting his law firm into debt.

Petitioner was arrested for the murder of his brother in law. He was interrogated for many hours after asking for his lawyer he was denied one. In the car he admitted that he was a part of the planning of the murder but later did not answer any that question. After His lawyer came to speak to him and was denied by many officers in the room including the chief. An officer told petitioner that if he pleaded not guilty that he could walk away and the other guy would be guilty for it.

In the first case, even if Larry refuses to pay to Rusty the extra money he promised, Rusty cannot sue him. The reason for this is that Rusty is taking money for the same thing he has done or will be going to do for Coco. Larry’s promise to pay him extra will be considered as a gift as there was no consideration given in exchange by Rusty. Rusty was already suppose to fit new locks for which he had an agreement with

Issue: Bankruptcy judges are not able to make decisions for bankruptcy related case alone, because they are considered subordinance. Most of these cases are not left to these bankruptcy specialize judges, but instead are taken over by the District Court.