Wonder Widgets The first issue Wonder Widgets faces is their liability to CelTel for the problem widgets. Depending on the cause of the problems, Wonder Widgets may be liable for damages. However, the sales contract contained a merger clause which limited wonder Widget’s liability. A merger clause, when included in a contract, cause the contract to become the complete agreement of the parties (Mallor 471). This means that any terms that were discussed prior to the contract, that are not included in writing, do not apply.
Being the sole owner of Uptown Distributors LLC. Distributing company, my client would have incurred damages in the form of profit loss due to the intentional and accidental theft of merchandise not to mention the irreversible damages inflicted to the credibility of his business and distributor clientele relationship due to the theft. All charges made would be directed towards Pops, as referenced in the rule “An employer is to be held liable for any actions and or behavior of his or her employees.” The merchandise belonging to my client intended for another customer was consciously and intentionally stolen by employees of POP 'S Barbershop, of which Pops is the sole owner. As such, Although Pops was not directly involved
Unit 5 1a) Employment Tribunal procedures both before and after the hearing Even though you have received a notification letter that a former employee has made a claim for unfair dismissal, I would suggest sending a letter to the employee, offering conciliation through ACAS. Conciliation can help resolve a dispute without the need of a tribunal hearing. An agreement called COT3 reached with the assistance of ACAS to resolve a tribunal claim is legally binding on the parties and removes the claimants (Joe’s) rights to pursue his claim in an employment tribunal. This can be a less time consuming and costly way to sort out a dispute. On the possibility that Joe declines this offer and would still like to proceed with tribunal, I would like
because of their worker’s negligence. At first, the decision of the court found in favour of Palsgraf but then was appealed by the defendant and it was favour of defendant side. It is because before an action may be considered negligent, a failed duty to the individual complaining must be found, which would have averted or avoided the injury. . Nothing about the situation reasonably suggested that the fall of the package would result in an explosion which would harm those at a distance.
Where a tenant was barred from recovery because the criminal act was not foreseeable. They will argue that this instance was foreseeable because the building supervisor was aware of non-tenants using the coin-operated laundry, and that someone matching the description of the man had been seen around the building and harassing tenants. The difference between Whittaker and our case though is that that a tenant and not a trespasser suffered damages. A third case, McKinney-Vareschi v. Paley, the Court held, “This duty, as applied to risks posed by a third party, requires the property owner to exercise reasonable care in preventing injury to a lawful visitor caused by the reasonably foreseeable acts of another.” 42 Mass.App.Ct. 953, 954 (1997).
Employees also hesitate to inform the SEC of possible violations because they initially condoned the act and they fear the SEC will say that they participated in the fraud. In cases like this, individuals should consult an attorney familiar with the SEC Whistleblower Program before submitting the tip. The only way whistleblowers can anonymously report a possible securities violation under the Whistleblower Program is if an attorney represents them. The attorney becomes an intermediary between the SEC and his or client. An attorney that bills him or herself as an SEC whistleblower advocate will try to clients the largest possible monetary reward from the SEC.
The appellate court however, determined that he was within the scope of his employment and this cannot be sued personally. Reasoning: FRIEDLANDER, Judge stated he believed the trial court correctly concluded that the allegation of negligence upon which the Bushongs’ action is premised was against a government employee acting within the scope of his employment. Judge Friedlander quoted Ind. Code Ann. § 34-13-3-5(a) prohibits a lawsuit against a public employee for actions committed while the employee was acting within the scope of employment, for his reasoning to dissent or reverse judgement.
To maintain fair competition in the thousands of businesses and industries throughout the United States, antitrust laws and trade regulations were created. Antitrust laws have been enacted at both the state and the federal level. These laws prohibit unfair competition between individuals and entities, as well as unfair or deceptive practices that may cause harm to consumers. What times of behaviors and actions does the government prohibit? The Sherman Antitrust Act, or the Sherman Act, is a law that was created over a century ago to stop businesses from combining in such a way that may damage competition.
If you have the feeling that you have lost your job for no reason by any means or that the reason given for your termination is not satisfactory, you can seek the services of an employment attorney. You may do this even if you believe that the settlement given to you by your employer is not fair. Such a lawyer can determine if what you feel about losing your job can be evidence of wrongful termination in a court of law. The reasons behind an easy to see and understand case concerning wrongful termination are two. Discrimination is the first reason and this happens when employers discriminate against someone due to the person's race, national origin,
A business can’t fire an employee who is disabled – People with disabilities are protected by the law and employers will be penalized if such an employee is dismissed because of this reason. The Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 prohibits employment discrimination against qualified applicants or employees with a physical or mental disability (Reference for Business, n.d.). Disabled persons most often assume that they can’t be fired because of their disability. It is common for employers to be hesitant on firing these employees because of the fear of litigation even if they have not acted unlawfully. But this doesn’t mean that an employer CANNOT fire or discipline that employee (Kielich, 2015).
3-7: Arbitration (pg. 77) Horton Automatics and the Industrial Division of the Communications Workers of America, the union that represented Horton’s workers, negotiated a collective bargaining agreement. If an employee’s discharge for a workplace-rule violation was submitted to arbitration, the agreement limited the arbitrator to determining whether the rule was reasonable and whether the employee violated it. When Horton discharged employee Ruben de la Garza, the union appealed to arbitration. The arbitrator found that de la Graza had violated a reasonable safety rule, but “was not totally convinced” that Harton should have treated the violation more seriously than other rule violations.
If I can show her dismissal had no underlying connection to the protected activity I am not bound by law to retain her employment. b. In Jennings v. Tinley Park Comm. Consol. School District the courts denied her claim of retaliatory discharge the reason being mutual trust and confidence between Procunier and Jennings were essential to the proper functioning of the workplace and Jennings’ discharge was based upon a loss of trust and confidence by Procunier, which was reasonable under the circumstances.