Given situation: Company H on Eminent 18, 2012, used a fifteen-year-old minor while the minor, locked in lifting daunting objects, injured his lower back. He underwent surgery in October 2012, to remove a herniated disk. Company H paid the correct amount of transitory payments up to disability increments ($53.36 per week) from Admirable 18, 2012, to November 15, 2013. The final settlement for 150 weeks of permanent half-way incapacity payments worth $6,136.40 came in February 2014. Under the arrangements that drive to understanding, Person T spoke to the company H and arranged directly with the minor and his mother HP. The overall interpretation of settlement was identified as being by the minor. Mrs. Parent, who was showing the marking at the time, did not challenge the marking, nor did she or someone else co-sign the statement. The minor subsequently tried to disaffirm the claim and reopen the stipend case for his staff. To discuss: The decision of the current scenario.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 14, Problem 12CP

Summary Introduction

Given situation:

Company H on Eminent 18, 2012, used a fifteen-year-old minor while the minor, locked in lifting daunting objects, injured his lower back. He underwent surgery in October 2012, to remove a herniated disk. Company H paid the correct amount of transitory payments up to disability increments ($53.36 per week) from Admirable 18, 2012, to November 15, 2013. The final settlement for 150 weeks of permanent half-way incapacity payments worth $6,136.40 came in February 2014.

Under the arrangements that drive to understanding, Person T spoke to the company H and arranged directly with the minor and his mother HP. The overall interpretation of settlement was identified as being by the minor. Mrs. Parent, who was showing the marking at the time, did not challenge the marking, nor did she or someone else co-sign the statement. The minor subsequently tried to disaffirm the claim and reopen the stipend case for his staff.

To discuss: The decision of the current scenario.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Jack Tupp contracts to work for Iona Carr Autohaus during February for $1,800. On January 17, Iona Carr Autohaus wrongfully cancels the contract. Jack Tupp refuses to accept a similar job with another car dealership which would have paid him $1,650. If Jack Tupp sues Iona Carr Autohaus, how much in damages would he most likely recover?

Zoey and Drew enter into a contract that requires Drew to supply ten paintings per month to Zoey for her to sell in her art store. In March, Drew gives Zoey five paintings. As a result, Zoey has a substantial loss in profits. Zoey can sue Drew and receive reimbursement for the loss of her profits as a. compensatory damages. b. consequential damages. c. punitive damages. d. restitution.

Jason Lasseigne, a Little League baseball player, was seriously injured at a practice session when he was struck on the head by a poorly thrown baseball from a team member, Todd Landry. The league was organized by American Legion Post 38. Claude Cassel and Billy Johnson were the volunteer coaches of the practice session. The Lasseignes brought suit on behalf of Jason against Post 38, claiming that the coaching was negligent and that Post 38 was vicari- ously liable for the harm caused by such negligence. Post 38 contended that it had no right to control the work of the volunteer coaches or the manner in which practices were conducted and as a result should not be held vicariously liable for the actions of the coaches. Decide. Please answer is the IRAC format Issue: Call of the QuestionRule: Rule of Law to be applied to properly answer the questionAnalysis:…