Agency and Discrimination Law Week 5 Midterm
Content
Agency and Discrimination Law Week 5 Midterm
Buy Now From Below:
http://www.homeworkarena.com/agency-and-discrimination-law
1. TCO B. The “public comment” period closes on an OSHA proposed regulation,
and your business had filed a public comment against the proposed regulation
explaining that hnj j b the regulation would not fix the problem that OSHA was
trying to remedy, that the regulation would cost more than the problem itself, and
that the regulation was a tax, not a safety change. List two arguments available to
your company that may succeed in overturning the regulation. (Points : 15)
2. TCO F. When Vanna White sued Samsung for appropriation and under the
Lanham Act, she won her case under the California common law right of publicity
claim and under the Lanham Act. List the eight Sleekcraft factors that are required
to prove a Lanham Act complaint. (Points : 15)
3. (TCO C) Bud Johnson owns a General Motors dealership in Pierre, South
Dakota. At the request and expense of General Motors, Bud traveled to Phoenix,
Arizona, for purposes of the demonstration of a new vehicle called the Roughrider,
designed to compete against the current offering of SUVs. Bud went to the proving
grounds in the desert around Phoenix and spent a day watching the vehicle
demonstrations. Bud and other dealers drove the vehicles, and much dust resulted
from their driving. A few weeks later, Bud became ill with flu-like symptoms. He
was finally diagnosed as having coccidioidomycosis or “valley fever.” Valley fever
is a disease well known to Arizona residents, and most have had it if they have
lived there over 10 years. Newcomers are particularly vulnerable to the disease
because the exposure to dust seems to build up immunity among the residents.
Bud became quite ill and brought suit against the car manufacturer that invited him
for its failure to warn him about the valley fever phenomenon before he came out
to the testing grounds. Answer the following questions, and use cases and theories
from the text to support your arguments:
Was there negligence in the failure of General Motors to warn Bud? (15 points)
Discuss all defenses General Motors may have. (15 points)
Does strict liability in torts apply to this situation? Why or why not? (10 points)
(Points : 40)
TCO D: Barney and his 16-year-old son BamBam are riding in Fred’s car. Fred had
taken some prescription medication that morning that stated on the bottle,
“Warning, may cause drowsiness.” The truck in front of them suffers a blow-out,
and swerves uncontrollably. The tire remnants fly into the road, Fred swerves and
hits a car to his left. He avoids hitting the truck with the blow-out but suffers
damage to the left side of his car. BamBam hits his head on the side of the car,
getting a concussion and permanently losing the sight in his right eye. Fred has
state law required auto insurance with the minimum policy limits.
Fred’s wife, Wilma, immediately calls Betty, BamBam’s mom, and apologizes
when she finds out about BamBam losing his eye. Wilma says to Betty, “Please
don’t worry. We will pay for anything the insurance doesn’t cover, including the
loss of BamBam’s sight and anything else he needs to recover and live a normal
life.” Betty sobs and says, “You are too good to us. We can’t accept that.” Wilma
says, “Of course you can.” Betty cries harder and says, “Thank you so much but
(unintelligible)” and hangs up.
Fred and Wilma own a house worth $450,000, a car worth $20,000, a full-size T.
rex skeleton for which a museum has offered $200,000 in the past, and some stocks
and bonds worth $700,000.
A lawsuit ensues and a judgment against Fred and for BamBam is entered for
$300,000. The insurance company paid their cap of $250,000, leaving $50,000
remaining due. Fred and Wilma immediately pay BamBam $50,000. Further,
Wilma buys a designer eye-patch for BamBam made specifically by Calvin Klein
with a picture of Fred and Wilma’s daughter, Pebbles, on it. Wilma hugs BamBam
when she brings over his new eye patch and says, “Anything. Anything you need.
We will take care of it for you.” Fred rolls his eyes at Barney, and Barney sighs and
shakes his head. Betty and Wilma both cry at how adorable BamBam looks with
his new eye patch. Barney buys BamBam a new car, specially designed for people
with one eye. Wilma finds out and calls Betty, asking how much the car was. Betty
says they are making payments on the car of $450/month for the next 4 years.
Wilma writes Betty a check for $450, and sends her one every month for the next 8
months.
Eight months after the judgment was rendered, BamBam is discovered to have
more damage to his head than originally thought. He loses sight in his other eye
and now is totally blind. BamBam’s parents sue Fred and Wilma again for personal
injury, but the case is thrown out as the first case already decided the injury case.
Fred refuses to pay more to BamBam, and he takes the checkbook away from
Wilma when he discovers she’s been making BamBam’s car payments. The two
families stop speaking to each other. BamBam throws away his now useless
eyepatch and becomes despondent. His dreams of being a drag racer seem to be
over. BamBam’s attorney refiles the case, this time on grounds that Wilma’s
statement to Betty was a binding contract that requires that Wilma pay any
remaining damages to BamBam, for the remainder of his life.
Was Wilma’s statement a binding contract? Using the law of contracts, explain
why or why not. Does BamBam’s age have anything to do with your answer? Can
Fred be bound by the potential contract Wilma may have entered into? Use the law
of agency to explain your answer to that question. Did Wilma’s purchase of the
eye-patch give BamBam a greater leg to stand on in court? What about the car
payments she made? Explain fully your answer to these questions.
(Points : 40)
5. TCO I. Marianne Jennings wrote an article, “Why an International Code of
Ethics would be good,” which was assigned to be read at the beginning of the
course. As you have worked throughout this session, you should have considered
this article and how it may or may not have impacted different situations in the
world economic/business/legal/political environments. The essay you will write on
the next question should show that you have read Marianne’s article and can apply
her theories and thoughts from that article to the scenario provided. Feel free to
rely on the information you know about the situations (if real) or analogize to
another one, if you wish. Include in your answer at least two specific concepts
from Marianne’s article, and apply those concepts to your reasoning in your
answer. You will be graded on your knowledge of the article as well as the
application of ethical theories to international situations.
In 2009–10, Toyota experienced a troubling “gas pedal” sticking issue, which
impacted its global reputation and income and caused it to stagger in its, until then,
position as one of the top, world-wide, respected, and best-selling car companies
on the globe. Over the first few months of the crisis, Toyota waffled on its message
to its customers, both denying and then accepting responsibility for the issue.
Research into the situation shows that the problem had been brought to its attention
for a long time and either ignored, disbelieved, or grudgingly accepted, depending
on the time and place of the issue.
For this question, think about the facts of the Toyota recall and its impact on
Toyota car owners worldwide, including the value (or loss thereof) of customer’s
trade-ins, car dealer’s business valuation losses, loss in used car sales to used car
dealers and owners, and also the loss of lives and injuries to those who were
grossly impacted by the gas pedal issue. Also, think about the cost to stockholders
and the other stakeholders involved. Now think about Marianne Jenning’s
international code of ethics article. Would an international code of ethics have
impacted how this entire Toyota travesty played out in the real world? What if the
“world of business” had agreed to one? Would Toyota have been somehow
required to behave differently, which would have protected so many stakeholders
from losses and people from injury? Or, would nothing really have changed? Feel
free to argue both sides of this, and include in your answer, please, at least two or
three things you would have included (or Marianne Jennings recommended to
include) in an international code of ethics and how that would (or wouldn’t) really
have impacted the Toyota crisis. Evaluate, analyze, and synthesize your answer
using everything you have learned this session about ethics, law, politics, and
business.
(Points : 40)
TCO A. Use the fact pattern you received in the above Marianne Jennings
“International Code of Ethics” question to answer this question. Analyze and
propose a solution to the problem you received above using the front page of the
newspaper method. Show the steps, apply the facts, and provide a proposed
solution you would suggest. (Points : 40)
Buy Now From Below:
http://www.homeworkarena.com/agency-and-discrimination-law
1. TCO B. The “public comment” period closes on an OSHA proposed regulation,
and your business had filed a public comment against the proposed regulation
explaining that hnj j b the regulation would not fix the problem that OSHA was
trying to remedy, that the regulation would cost more than the problem itself, and
that the regulation was a tax, not a safety change. List two arguments available to
your company that may succeed in overturning the regulation. (Points : 15)
2. TCO F. When Vanna White sued Samsung for appropriation and under the
Lanham Act, she won her case under the California common law right of publicity
claim and under the Lanham Act. List the eight Sleekcraft factors that are required
to prove a Lanham Act complaint. (Points : 15)
3. (TCO C) Bud Johnson owns a General Motors dealership in Pierre, South
Dakota. At the request and expense of General Motors, Bud traveled to Phoenix,
Arizona, for purposes of the demonstration of a new vehicle called the Roughrider,
designed to compete against the current offering of SUVs. Bud went to the proving
grounds in the desert around Phoenix and spent a day watching the vehicle
demonstrations. Bud and other dealers drove the vehicles, and much dust resulted
from their driving. A few weeks later, Bud became ill with flu-like symptoms. He
was finally diagnosed as having coccidioidomycosis or “valley fever.” Valley fever
is a disease well known to Arizona residents, and most have had it if they have
lived there over 10 years. Newcomers are particularly vulnerable to the disease
because the exposure to dust seems to build up immunity among the residents.
Bud became quite ill and brought suit against the car manufacturer that invited him
for its failure to warn him about the valley fever phenomenon before he came out
to the testing grounds. Answer the following questions, and use cases and theories
from the text to support your arguments:
Was there negligence in the failure of General Motors to warn Bud? (15 points)
Discuss all defenses General Motors may have. (15 points)
Does strict liability in torts apply to this situation? Why or why not? (10 points)
(Points : 40)
TCO D: Barney and his 16-year-old son BamBam are riding in Fred’s car. Fred had
taken some prescription medication that morning that stated on the bottle,
“Warning, may cause drowsiness.” The truck in front of them suffers a blow-out,
and swerves uncontrollably. The tire remnants fly into the road, Fred swerves and
hits a car to his left. He avoids hitting the truck with the blow-out but suffers
damage to the left side of his car. BamBam hits his head on the side of the car,
getting a concussion and permanently losing the sight in his right eye. Fred has
state law required auto insurance with the minimum policy limits.
Fred’s wife, Wilma, immediately calls Betty, BamBam’s mom, and apologizes
when she finds out about BamBam losing his eye. Wilma says to Betty, “Please
don’t worry. We will pay for anything the insurance doesn’t cover, including the
loss of BamBam’s sight and anything else he needs to recover and live a normal
life.” Betty sobs and says, “You are too good to us. We can’t accept that.” Wilma
says, “Of course you can.” Betty cries harder and says, “Thank you so much but
(unintelligible)” and hangs up.
Fred and Wilma own a house worth $450,000, a car worth $20,000, a full-size T.
rex skeleton for which a museum has offered $200,000 in the past, and some stocks
and bonds worth $700,000.
A lawsuit ensues and a judgment against Fred and for BamBam is entered for
$300,000. The insurance company paid their cap of $250,000, leaving $50,000
remaining due. Fred and Wilma immediately pay BamBam $50,000. Further,
Wilma buys a designer eye-patch for BamBam made specifically by Calvin Klein
with a picture of Fred and Wilma’s daughter, Pebbles, on it. Wilma hugs BamBam
when she brings over his new eye patch and says, “Anything. Anything you need.
We will take care of it for you.” Fred rolls his eyes at Barney, and Barney sighs and
shakes his head. Betty and Wilma both cry at how adorable BamBam looks with
his new eye patch. Barney buys BamBam a new car, specially designed for people
with one eye. Wilma finds out and calls Betty, asking how much the car was. Betty
says they are making payments on the car of $450/month for the next 4 years.
Wilma writes Betty a check for $450, and sends her one every month for the next 8
months.
Eight months after the judgment was rendered, BamBam is discovered to have
more damage to his head than originally thought. He loses sight in his other eye
and now is totally blind. BamBam’s parents sue Fred and Wilma again for personal
injury, but the case is thrown out as the first case already decided the injury case.
Fred refuses to pay more to BamBam, and he takes the checkbook away from
Wilma when he discovers she’s been making BamBam’s car payments. The two
families stop speaking to each other. BamBam throws away his now useless
eyepatch and becomes despondent. His dreams of being a drag racer seem to be
over. BamBam’s attorney refiles the case, this time on grounds that Wilma’s
statement to Betty was a binding contract that requires that Wilma pay any
remaining damages to BamBam, for the remainder of his life.
Was Wilma’s statement a binding contract? Using the law of contracts, explain
why or why not. Does BamBam’s age have anything to do with your answer? Can
Fred be bound by the potential contract Wilma may have entered into? Use the law
of agency to explain your answer to that question. Did Wilma’s purchase of the
eye-patch give BamBam a greater leg to stand on in court? What about the car
payments she made? Explain fully your answer to these questions.
(Points : 40)
5. TCO I. Marianne Jennings wrote an article, “Why an International Code of
Ethics would be good,” which was assigned to be read at the beginning of the
course. As you have worked throughout this session, you should have considered
this article and how it may or may not have impacted different situations in the
world economic/business/legal/political environments. The essay you will write on
the next question should show that you have read Marianne’s article and can apply
her theories and thoughts from that article to the scenario provided. Feel free to
rely on the information you know about the situations (if real) or analogize to
another one, if you wish. Include in your answer at least two specific concepts
from Marianne’s article, and apply those concepts to your reasoning in your
answer. You will be graded on your knowledge of the article as well as the
application of ethical theories to international situations.
In 2009–10, Toyota experienced a troubling “gas pedal” sticking issue, which
impacted its global reputation and income and caused it to stagger in its, until then,
position as one of the top, world-wide, respected, and best-selling car companies
on the globe. Over the first few months of the crisis, Toyota waffled on its message
to its customers, both denying and then accepting responsibility for the issue.
Research into the situation shows that the problem had been brought to its attention
for a long time and either ignored, disbelieved, or grudgingly accepted, depending
on the time and place of the issue.
For this question, think about the facts of the Toyota recall and its impact on
Toyota car owners worldwide, including the value (or loss thereof) of customer’s
trade-ins, car dealer’s business valuation losses, loss in used car sales to used car
dealers and owners, and also the loss of lives and injuries to those who were
grossly impacted by the gas pedal issue. Also, think about the cost to stockholders
and the other stakeholders involved. Now think about Marianne Jenning’s
international code of ethics article. Would an international code of ethics have
impacted how this entire Toyota travesty played out in the real world? What if the
“world of business” had agreed to one? Would Toyota have been somehow
required to behave differently, which would have protected so many stakeholders
from losses and people from injury? Or, would nothing really have changed? Feel
free to argue both sides of this, and include in your answer, please, at least two or
three things you would have included (or Marianne Jennings recommended to
include) in an international code of ethics and how that would (or wouldn’t) really
have impacted the Toyota crisis. Evaluate, analyze, and synthesize your answer
using everything you have learned this session about ethics, law, politics, and
business.
(Points : 40)
TCO A. Use the fact pattern you received in the above Marianne Jennings
“International Code of Ethics” question to answer this question. Analyze and
propose a solution to the problem you received above using the front page of the
newspaper method. Show the steps, apply the facts, and provide a proposed
solution you would suggest. (Points : 40)
