Case Study : Business Law Case

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.

Laws have been put in place of the years to ensure that everyone has equal opportunities when it comes to getting a job, keeping a job, and having access to goods, services, and locations. Several of the laws that have been enacted over the years include the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Age Discrimination Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities of 1990.

With those occupational areas (from the OTPF) listed above, what are some intervention strategies/methods or strategies to help Mark. Name at least 5 strategies or provide a treatment plan outlined for Mark.

Exercising personal jurisdiction over SET would not comport with due process under either federal or Illinois constitutions, because Plaintiff cannot meet the standard to satisfy the federal due process requirements. Federal due process requires Plaintiff to establish: “(1) the nonresident defendant had ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state such that there was ‘fair warning’ that the nonresident defendant may be hauled into court there; (2) the action arose out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum state; and (3) it is reasonable to require the defendant to litigate in the forum state.” Keller, 834 N.E.2d at 936.

I would hire Jody because she is a “certified physician coder through AAPC” that is required by state and federal law. When an agency or organization performs a review and grants recognition to an institution that meets specific standards; which are required, it is accredited. This accreditation process is done so that facilities can pinpoint when organizations do “not” meet these standards and to endorse those that “do” meet these standards by state and federal laws.

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

First incident, Det. Resto and Sgt. Gomez, while on routine patrol, observe plaintiff rolling a large marijuana cigar. Det. Resto and Sgt. Gomez approached plaintiff who then threw away the cigar. MOS questioned and frisked plaintiff, then plaintiff threw himself on the ground and began to scream to avoid being arrested. MOS were able to stop plaintiff from resisting and placed him in the prisoner van. At the precinct, plaintiff was issued a summons for disorderly conduct and released. Second incident, PO Cody Doran responded to fight at McDonald’s and viewed the incident on surveillance video and took CW statements. PO Taylor and Sgt. Choi received a radio call regarding suspects fleeing from a fight at a Times Squares McDonald’s. MOS observed

Legal case management for legal aid offices presents special challenges. See how Legal Files can meet them all to save time and money.

Standards for obligation to state-run mental organizations in Massachusetts are defined by statute. Most admissions fall under one of the following classes:

Assume it is now July 2017, what legal advice would you provide to both Rose and Dennis?

1. What do you think about the current laws in place for Copyright, Trademarks, and the state of the Public Domain?

In this essay I will begin with the concept of a company having a separate corporate personality and limited liability with their importance in company law. The doctrine of separate legal personality which was made by the House of Lords in Salomon v Salomon and co ltd (1897) was the landmark case. Furthermore I will describe the concept of the ‘veil of incorporation’. I will give relevant cases of when the veil of incorporation can be lifted by the courts and statuary provisions, for instance, s.16 Companies Act 2006 and incorporate different viewpoints of the judges. Finally I will state whether or not I agree with the given articulation.

Limited liability is an instrument that basically encourages the process of development of the economy. Lack of limiting the liability, the risks of investing would be significantly higher and the obligations will expand. The separation of the corporate entity, is a protection and overall, without its establishment the results will be lower activity in the entire economy. However, on the creditors’ point of view regarding the liability, there is a restriction of the assets and they cannot exceed company’s assets, which in case of wound up the unsecured creditors’ claims could not be fully met.

When the company went into liquidation, the liquidator argued that the debentures used by Mr. Salomon as security for the debt were invalid, on the grounds of fraud. The judge, Vaughan Williams J. accepted this argument, ruling that since Mr. Salomon had created the company solely to transfer his business to it, the company was in reality his agent and he as principal was liable for debts to unsecured creditors.