Sullivan College of Technolog

DISCUSSION QUESTION

Identify the similarities and differences of Aristotle’s virtues theory with Josephson’s core values model. In either case, are the behaviors they outline duties to the self or duties to others? If to others, which others? To what degree do these mimic or reinforce existing law? To what degree might these conflict with existing law? Illustrate these last two with examples.

MY ANSWER;

Aristotle’s virtue ethics and Josephson’s core values are similar in certain ways but different in others. The primary similarity between these two is that they are both based upon virtues and ethical standards. Additionally, Aristotle’s fourteen virtues, including truthfulness, courage, friendliness, and justice are similar to Josephson’s core values of respect, responsibility, care, and trustworthiness (Mayer, et al.,2014). Also, the virtues theory and the core values model are both applicable to different organizational issues. Despite these similarities, the two were invented at different times in history for unique purposes. One difference between the two is that virtue ethics constitutes one list of dependent values. However, Josephson’s core values constitute two lists that are independent of each other.

In both Aristotle’s virtue ethics and Josephson’s core values, the behaviors outline duties to others. For instance, one should be respectful, caring, friendly, and be fair to others (Mayer, et al.,2014). The others in both refer to the other individuals around someone. In an organizational setting, it means co-workers, management, customers, and other third parties. In a societal setting, it refers to fellow members of the society such as family members, neighbors, friends, and strangers. Essentially, it describes people, the people who one’s behavior can affect directly or indirectly. Some of Aristotle’s values also outline behaviors that demonstrate duty to self, such as temperance and modesty.

It is critical to note that the law is separate from ethics. Moral ethics and law are two different concepts. In certain cases, something that is legal may be unethical in a specific society and vice versa. Josephson’s core values significantly reinforce the existing laws. For instance, it enforces truthfulness and trustworthiness. It encourages people to tell the truth just as the law does when it comes to court proceedings. It also encourages people to play by the rules, obeying the law, and generally acting as good citizens. Essentially, it helps reinforce the law by creating a sense of ethics where people feel it is their responsibility to behave in a particular manner and follow the law. The core values may conflict with existing laws in one way. Under trustworthiness, it encourages demonstrative integrity where people should stand up for what they believe in (Mayer, et al.,2014). Standing up for what one believes in is not wrong. However, if the beliefs are misguided and wrong, then people may end up committing crimes. For instance, if one believes that murder is right then this core value encourages the person to commit murder.

Virtue ethics also partially reinforce the law. It does so by encouraging justice and truthfulness (Mayer, et al.,2014). Justice is the basis of the law, and as such, the law constantly advocates for justice and seeks to promote it. While it is not illegal to tell lies, the law sometimes requires that one tells the truth. For instance, when someone is a witness to a crime, truthfulness is critical to promote justice. Justice is also vital to the law. One value that may conflict with the existing law is high-mindedness. The law encourages that all people receive equal treatment. For instance, dismissing specific individuals in an organization may give rise to discrimination that is illegal and against the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A RESPONSE TO MY ANSWER;

Thank you for your response. The example you gave about telling lies as being not necessarily illegal kind of helped to put that into perspective for me with regards to sometimes falsifying information can be illegal. As you mentioned being a witness to a crime, they make you swear under oath which can have legal implications should it be proven that your testimony was not honest. Same is true when police are conducting an investigation and you interfere with their ability to pursue the case. Lying is not only punishable in a legal environment, but also if you think about in the workplace. Honesty is a key concept in maintaining a balanced workplace. Transparency from management as outlined in the organizations core values can help to decide whether the organization is the right fit for someone seeking employment. Do you think that these core values are also reflective of someone who is a good leader? Do you think that values of an organization also play a role in the culture that they create? RESPOND TO THIS USING 150 WORDS

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Posted in Uncategorized

Sullivan College of Technolog

DISCUSSION QUESTION

Please carefully read the following story and identify and explain all the tort liabilities that may exist for all involved parties. For each, be sure to identify the tort, the plaintiff and defendant and say how likely it is that each could be won or lost.

Titan Fireworks, LLC is owned by Bill Smith. It operates a retail location just off a busy expressway and has by its own advertising “The Largest Assortment of the Most-Powerful Consumer-Legal Pyrotechnics East of the Mississippi”. On April 1 at noon there are 3 people in the store, Smith, and a young newlywed couple, John and Tina Brown, who are shopping for fireworks to use for a prank they plan to play on their neighbor later that day. A few minutes later, they are joined by Smith’s ex-wife, Lucinda, who is carrying a baseball bat and who walks directly up to Bill and tells him that she will “wreck the entire store, and his life” if Smith doesn’t immediately give her $1000 out of the cash register. Bill Smith has a restraining order against Lucinda that precludes her from coming to the store. Bill tells Lucinda to leave or he will call the police. In a fit of rage, she swings the bat wildly at Bill, which he manages to block with his arm, the act of which dislocates the bat from Lucinda’s grip and sends the bat flying through the air. The airborne bat hits John Brown in the back of the head and he falls to the floor, unconscious. Tina Brown suffers from a diagnosed emotional imbalance and falls to the floor in a silent fetal position at the sight of her unconscious husband. Bill Smith grabs Lucinda and drags her back to the office and locks her inside and calls 911 for both police and medical aid. in the meantime, John Brown regains consciousness and tries to console his young wife. Upon getting Tina back to her feet, John begins to walk her out to their car. Bill Smith runs to the doorway and physically blocks their exit, telling them they must wait for the police to arrive and lifts his shirt to show a handgun in his waistband. The police and ambulance arrive within 15 minutes. The police take statements, haul Lucinda to jail, and render care on site to Bill, John and Tina. Over the next few weeks, Tina needs extra psychiatric counseling and John writes a letter to the editor of the local paper saying that Bill Smith deliberately injured the Browns and that he shouldn’t be allowed to operate his business in the community. Immediately after the letter is published, Smith’s landlord terminates his lease contract for the Titan Fireworks location and his membership in the local Chamber of Commerce is suspended.

MY ANSWER

A tort is a civil wrong by the defendant that causes injury or harm to the plaintiff resulting in courts imposing legal liability (Beatty et al., 2013). The first tort is trespass committed by Lucinda (defendant), who enters Bill’s (plaintiff) fireworks store with a baseball bat, whereas she has a restraining order that prohibits her from entering the store. The remedy for this would be a court injunction Lucinda not to set foot in the store. It would be the last warning. Lucinda’s (defendant) intention was to hit Bill, who blocks the swing, making her lose grip of the baseball bat, which flies in the air and hits John (plaintiff), who falls unconscious. She commits a contributory negligent tort due to her carelessness of not holding a proper grip of the bat. In this case, the court should order Lucinda to compensate for the injury caused to John. Finally, the tort of strict liability is evident where Tina’s (plaintiff) emotional imbalance is triggered by seeing her husband fall unconscious after being hit by Lucinda’s (defendant) baseball bat. Even though it was not Lucinda’s intention to cause harm to the Browns, she committed contributory negligence and strict liability torts and is liable for compensation.

DIRECTIONS;RESPOND TO 4 CLASSMATES AND ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION THAT RELATES TO THE TOPIC. 100-150

RESPONSE ONE

Is there a difference between tort law and contractual law?

Our book mentions three types of tort cases that would fall under strict liability. These involve people who “engages in ultrahazardous (or sometimes, abnormally dangerous) activities”, people who have an “animal that escapes from their pastures of homes”, and from defective products. From my interpretation, these kinds of torts are reserved for people who have made every action to make their product or services as safe as they can (thus no fault), but due to the nature of the product, the hazard of the business, or the nature of the beast, a person has taken damage and needs this wrong (trot) corrected. Do you agree with my assessment? Do you find that Lucinda’s actions reflect this kind of wrong that resulted in Tina’s condition? Did Lucinda do everything in her power to minimize the dangers of the products and or activities she participates in or produces?

A very thought provoking post Eryn, I hope you weekend is eventful and productive.

Sources:

Mayer, D. Warner, D. Siedel, G. Lieberman, J. (2014). Business Law and the Legal Enviroment (Version 1). Washington, DC: Flat World.

RESPONSE TWO

Would Bill Smith have any liability due to not having enough security at his business?

What about the possibility of Bill Smith sueing John Brown due to his letter getting his lease cancelled? This would include damages lost to the store not being open?

Would defamation apply in this suit?

Tina Brown might be able to sue based on intentional inflation of emotional distress due to her husband’s injury happening when she commited a crime?

Would Tina And John Brown be able to sue Bill Smith for negligence?

I saw many possibilities for suits in this case some of them with a very good chance of winning some would require a little more proof development, don’t forget to loo at all the angles

RESPONSE THREE~Sarah

The story of the events that occurred at Titan Fireworks, LLC on April 1st had many torts. The first tort was when Lucinda came to the store although Bill has a restraining order against her. In this case, Bill was the defendant and Lucinda was the plaintiff because Lucinda was in the wrong. Bill would definitely win this case due to having the restraining order against Lucinda. Bill would also be the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Lucinda, the defendant, with the tort that she threatened Bill with a bat while asking for $1,000 from the store’s cash register. During this event, another tort occurred between the two when Lucinda swung the bat at Bill. Bill would win this case as well because Lucinda attempted to rob him and assaulted him when she did not get her way. At this point, I would have to say that Bill becomes the defendant, and the Smiths are the plaintiff. This is because John writes a letter to the editor of the local paper stating that Bill injured the Smiths on purpose. I believe that John would lose this case because it can be proven that the bat flew across the room after Bill protected himself from Lucinda’s attack. Due to John’s letter, Tina may also be the plaintiff in a case against Bill since she needed extra psychiatric counseling after the events that occurring in the store that day. Again, I do not think that this would be an easy win for Tina because Bill did not purposefully endanger the couple. Lucinda could create a case as the plaintiff and Bill as the defendant because he dragged her to the office and locked her inside in the attempt to cause less harm and call the police. This may be difficult for Lucinda to win since she would already have multiple cases against her. Lastly, the Smiths would also create a case against Bill for blocking them from exiting the store and threating them with a gun. The Smiths could win this case since Bill threatened them to stay in the store.

RESPONSE 4 lakeisha

First Case

Torts: Intentional and Negligent

Tort liabilities: Fault, Injury to person – assault, injury to property trespassing, pain and suffering damages

Plaintiffs: Bill Smith, Tina and John Brown.

Defendant: Lucinda (Smith’s ex-girlfriend)

It is likely Bill Smith will win this case. Lucida violated an existing restraining order and was trespassing on the property. There was intentional fault when she entered and demanded $1,000.00 from the register. There was also injury to person – assault when she proceeded to hit John Smith with the bat.

It is also likely the other plaintiffs John and Tina Brown will win their case as well. John was hit in the head with a bat and Tina suffered during the ordeal. Lucinda was a fault for both.

Second Case

Tort: Intentional

Tort Liabilities: Fault, Injury to person – assault, injury to person – metal distress with intentional infliction of emotional distress, pain and suffering damages,

Plaintiffs: Tina and John Brown

Defendant: Bill Smith

Tina and John Brown will likely in this case. Although Bill wanted the plaintiffs to stay until the police arrived, he cannot hold them against their well and raise his shirt to show he has a handgun. This caused address mental stress on Tina, and this was assault, threat with a deadly weapon. Tina and John Brown suffered at the hands of Bill Smith.

Third Case

Tort Strict Liability

Tort Liabilities: Fault – strict liability, compensatory damages, lost wages, expenses,

Plaintiff: John Brown

Defendant: Bill Smith

Bill could likely win or lose this case. He could win because of the impact his business suffered after John writes a letter to the editor of the local paper saying that Bill Smith deliberately injured the Browns, and he should not be allowed to operate. This article cased Bill’s business to loss wages, Bill could argue for compensatory damages. However, I do not believe there is fault with John writing the letter, but the judge may find he acts cause Bill to loss wages.

Bill could also lose this case; he did not permit John to leave the store and he threaten him with a handgun. John suffered by Bills intentional assault. John has the right to express his concern, shop owners should not wave handguns at their customers.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Posted in Uncategorized

Sullivan College of Technolog

DISCUSSION QUESTION

Identify the similarities and differences of Aristotle’s virtues theory with Josephson’s core values model. In either case, are the behaviors they outline duties to the self or duties to others? If to others, which others? To what degree do these mimic or reinforce existing law? To what degree might these conflict with existing law? Illustrate these last two with examples.

DIRECTIONS: RESPOND TO 5 CLASSMATES Your responses to other’s posts clearly seek to expand, clarify, or question the original post and are not repetitive of others’ responses. More than the minimum number of responses are made with enough time for others to take note of your comments and reply. 150 WORDS




MY ANSWER:

Aristotle’s virtue ethics and Josephson’s core values are similar in certain ways but different in others. The primary similarity between these two is that they are both based upon virtues and ethical standards. Additionally, Aristotle’s fourteen virtues, including truthfulness, courage, friendliness, and justice are similar to Josephson’s core values of respect, responsibility, care, and trustworthiness (Mayer, et al.,2014). Also, the virtues theory and the core values model are both applicable to different organizational issues. Despite these similarities, the two were invented at different times in history for unique purposes. One difference between the two is that virtue ethics constitutes one list of dependent values. However, Josephson’s core values constitute two lists that are independent of each other.

In both Aristotle’s virtue ethics and Josephson’s core values, the behaviors outline duties to others. For instance, one should be respectful, caring, friendly, and be fair to others (Mayer, et al.,2014). The others in both refer to the other individuals around someone. In an organizational setting, it means co-workers, management, customers, and other third parties. In a societal setting, it refers to fellow members of the society such as family members, neighbors, friends, and strangers. Essentially, it describes people, the people who one’s behavior can affect directly or indirectly. Some of Aristotle’s values also outline behaviors that demonstrate duty to self, such as temperance and modesty.

It is critical to note that the law is separate from ethics. Moral ethics and law are two different concepts. In certain cases, something that is legal may be unethical in a specific society and vice versa. Josephson’s core values significantly reinforce the existing laws. For instance, it enforces truthfulness and trustworthiness. It encourages people to tell the truth just as the law does when it comes to court proceedings. It also encourages people to play by the rules, obeying the law, and generally acting as good citizens. Essentially, it helps reinforce the law by creating a sense of ethics where people feel it is their responsibility to behave in a particular manner and follow the law. The core values may conflict with existing laws in one way. Under trustworthiness, it encourages demonstrative integrity where people should stand up for what they believe in (Mayer, et al.,2014). Standing up for what one believes in is not wrong. However, if the beliefs are misguided and wrong, then people may end up committing crimes. For instance, if one believes that murder is right then this core value encourages the person to commit murder.

Virtue ethics also partially reinforce the law. It does so by encouraging justice and truthfulness (Mayer, et al.,2014). Justice is the basis of the law, and as such, the law constantly advocates for justice and seeks to promote it. While it is not illegal to tell lies, the law sometimes requires that one tells the truth. For instance, when someone is a witness to a crime, truthfulness is critical to promote justice. Justice is also vital to the law. One value that may conflict with the existing law is high-mindedness. The law encourages that all people receive equal treatment. For instance, dismissing specific individuals in an organization may give rise to discrimination that is illegal and against the Fair Labor Standards Act.





Nicole,

I believe the main similarity between Aristotle’s virtues theory and Josephson’s core values model is that they both advocate and encourage for individuals to have and apply ethical behavior both in their personal being and in their workplace. I believe the main difference between Aristotle’s virtues theory and Josephson’s core values model is that Aristotle’s main purpose of virtues is to reach an end result or a goal. Josephson’s core values model essentially means that individuals have core values that apply both to their personal life and corporate life. I actually believe that both Aristotle’s virtues theory and Josephson’s core values model outline duties to the self and duties to others. I believe Aristotle’s virtues theory can be a duty to other’s because a certain goal that someone could have to make themselves happy, may have to do with someone else’s happiness or attention. I believe Josephson’s core values model can be a duty to other’s as well because people’s qualities and characteristics can make an impact on the way people view them. To an extent, I believe that both Aristotle’s virtues theory and Josephson’s core values model mimic or reinforce existing law. Aristotle’s virtues theory can mimic or reinforce existing laws because his theory is based on the ethical value of certain qualities, or virtues, in a person’s character (Mayer et al., 2014). Aristotle’s virtues theory may conflict with existing laws because of the end results that make some people happy, or some goals that people set, can be completely unethical and illegal. I believe those are rarer cases, but they’re still relevant. A thought that comes to mind is the Columbine High School massacre. I watched a documentary on it from the viewpoint of Dylan Klebold’s, one of the shooters, mother. In the documentary it was explained that these horrible, incredibly negative and dark thoughts were his happiness. Dylan felt most confident and “happy” when he was in a dark state of mind, and hence the result in the shooting. As I mentioned, I believe these cases are, thankfully, rarer, but nonetheless still cases. Josephson’s core values model can mimic or reinforce existing laws because his theory is based on individual’s core values and their decision processes based on their core values. Josephson’s core value model may conflict with existing laws because there are times when people feel as though their core values are being violated with certain laws and their rights. A thought that comes to mind, and was also mentioned in the text, are political figures. The text lists Eliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton as examples, but I (sadly) believe all political figures have to bend some ways and go through secret loops in order to “maintain” their status-quo.

Stephanie,

Identify the similarities and differences of Aristotle’s virtues theory with Josephson’s core values model. In either case, are the behaviors they outline duties to the self or duties to others? If to others, which others?

When reviewing the list of theories amongst both Aristotle and Josephson’s, some of the similarities that I notice between the two would be acting fair. Along with Josephson’s core values, according to Aristotle one of his theories includes righteous indignation, and this is maintaining a balance of your emotions” (Mayer 2012). Those who remain fair typically have emotion or passion behind what they are discussing but also are able to maintain an open mind and make decisions not just based on emotion or over-reaction. Same holds true as Aristotle mentions moderation between consuming food and beverages, moderation ensures others have opportunity to consume, this is also another layer of fair treatment. All but a few of Aristotle’s theories are characteristics of a good leader, but I still find them to be more self-involved than the ones of Josephson’s. Josephson’s are more focused on those who are the followers of that individual but also core values of the company people would want to work for. The text talks about organizations having to clearly define such competencies in order to maintain them and be successful. Clearly defining these values, also helps to ensure that the organization is hiring those who are like minded and share the same values.

To what degree do these mimic or reinforce existing law?

These mimic law in that each person is expected to maintain at least some level of respect not just to their peers but also to law enforcement and other governmental officials. This also pertains to law since employers are able to be put into litigation for the wrongdoings or mistreatment of employees. Having these core values mapped out and also implemented into company policy can help to ensure that they remain compliant with the ever changing rule and regulations set forth by labor officials. For instance if the company is consistent with enforcing the policies and being fair to all employees, typically they can show the disciplinary succession which led to termination. Just like law, a written record is required to move forward with the consequences.

To what degree might these conflict with existing law? Illustrate these last two with examples.

One instance of these values conflicting with current law would be justice. How is that clearly defined? As the text states, not everyone’s perception of justice is the same. Crimes that are committed may not warrant an equal punishment for everyone and certain facts may chance the length of the punishment. This may seem like it is injustice, and it’s possible that it is. Another conflicting example would be magnificence. There are laws regarding paying taxes on the funds that you work for. This deduction from wages could limit one’s ability to live comfortably.

Eric,

1. Courage 2. Moderation 3. Spend Money Well 4. Live Well 5. Pride 6. High-Mindedness 7. Unamed Vitrue 8. Concern for Others 9. Truthfullness 10. Wit 11. Friendliness 12. Pleasure in Personal Conduct 13. Righteous Indignation 14. Justice

undefined

Josephesons Six Core Values:

1. Trustworthiness 2. respect 3. Responsibility 4. Fairness 5. Caring 6. Citizenship

undefined

I think that Aristotles virtues were geared more toward a personal improvement. Our in more of his words, goals. Whereas Josephsons (this is a wierd name to say and spell!) are more geared towards an ethical treatment projected towards others. The text utilized an explanation that some folks approved of being good-looking as a core value but that really isnt an ethic. After all the studies were conducted, the six permanent values remained as purely ethical without question.

undefined

It cannot be denied that Aristotle also had outward projecting motivations here as #8 is about a concern for others. Quite frankly, so is truthfullness, friendliness and numerous others. This is a similarity between the two schools of thought. Additionally, are these not ALL aspirations? Are these not ALL self-improvement? Are these not ALL aspects that would make anybody a better person? Both thoughts are an excellent blueprint in how to improve ones self. And as silly as it sounds Michael Jackson said it best. Start with the Man in the Mirror and the rest of the world will follow suite.

undefined

To progress through the question, I think there are some oppurtunities to reinforce law. If a judge is deciding a child custody battle and gives the kid primarily to the mother simply because shes the female, that isnt coinciding with fairness. Or what about an example of charging a white man with a hate crime if he beats up a black man, but not the other way around? That would violate true justice. Sometimes these schools of thought could conflict with existing law. Illegal immigration is a hot topic issue right now. Without doubt, there are more than enough examples of illegals being able to reside in the USA and thereby breaking its own laws and the 6th Core Value.

Lauren D,

Virtues and values play a big role in our day to day lives; they can shape how people view us, what companies want to hire us and the relationships that we build. While Aristotle’s virtues theory may seem a bit outdated now (because courage in battle is something only soldiers can claim, and magnificence is reserved for royalty) but he had a sound idea that virtuous qualities shape who a person is instead of rules or results. Similar to this, Josephson identifies 6 qualities that seem to be universally recognized as desirable in ourselves, coworkers, friends, and companions. Their virtues are what define them, not the rules or results.

Another similarity between Aristotle and Josephson is that they both highlight ethical and moral qualities over more ego-centrical, selfish qualities. Josephson’s values all revolve around duties to others. Aristotle’s virtues of truthfulness, gentleness, wit, friendliness and justice all focus on how to act around other and treat other people. While Aristolte’s other virtues, such as liberality, temperance, and high-mindedness outline duties to the self, they are still deemed ethical. For example, a people who is liberal with their money is deemed more responsible and not a frivolous person. While this value focuses on the self, it is still a moral virtue to possess.

Josephson and Aristotle’s theories are applied very differently to the business world because of their differences in focusing on the self versus on others. Josephson’s ideas can more easily be applied to the business world and corporations more than Aristotle’s can. While interviewing for jobs, I have heard many times that companies are looking for trustworthy, responsible, caring employees. Not once have I heard that a company is looking for a magnificent, high-minded, and gentle employee.

Our laws revolve around doing encouraging what is moral and virtuous while discouraging what is immoral and lacking virtue. Though the virtues described by Josephson and Aristotle may not perfectly mirror our laws, they do describe a person/corporation that would not violate our laws. Murder is an example of this. While “will not murder” is not a virtue described by either ethicist, murderers do not exhibit gentleness or respect (for human life). Another example is drinking while driving; a person who is found guilty of a DUI does not display the virtues of temperance or trustworthiness.

On the other hand, a lack of temperance did not cause the DUI, but instead a lack of forethought and clear thinking did. Many people can enjoy an excessive amount of alcohol without also driving, so the lack of the virtue of temperance is not the main driver for breaking the law.

Lisa,

Aristotle’s virtue theory outlined fourteen virtues focused on a person’s character, with the goal being happiness. Josephson’s core values model comprises six core values that can be applied using five questions when an ethical decision must be made. A person or a corporation can make this decision. The main difference between the two (besides the number) is that Aristotle’s virtue theory was solely focused on the individual and not what the impact of their actions might be on others.

Josephson was primarily focused on how decisions or actions made by either the individual or an organization could impact stakeholders. These stakeholders could be any person or group of people who could gain or lose something from the decision. Additionally, Josephson’s core values model is only applicable when an ethical decision needs to be made, while Aristotle’s virtue theory was to be applied constantly and live a virtuous life.

Although these theories differ on the person(nel) impacted by actions or decisions, there are some similarities. For example, both are tied to ethics. Both ideas outline truthfulness – Aristotle in virtue nine and Josephson in core value one. This similarity can also be seen in virtue eight (gentleness) and core value five (caring). While Aristotle’s values may be outdated for today’s society, there is still some applicability and crossover into Josephson’s core values.

A portion of Aristotle’s virtue theory and all of Josephson’s core values reinforce existing law. In Aristotle’s list of virtues, justice is the obvious answer in supporting law, along with truthfulness and gentleness. All of Josephson’s core values can be applied to reinforce existing law. For example, trustworthiness and responsibility can be used when following the law. Respect, fairness, and caring can all be examples of supporting anti-discrimination acts. The following Aristotle virtues could be seen as conflicting with existing law: liberality, magnificence, and righteous indignation. These could all be conflicting because the virtues are focused on the self and not the impact on others. For example, for someone to obtain liberality (spending money well) or magnificence (living well), they could steal from others or conduct other illegal acts to meet the intent of those virtues.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Posted in Uncategorized

Sullivan College of Technolog

This week’s reading focuses on dealing with the legal duty to avoid harming others’ persons or property in ways that may or may not be associated with a criminal act. These responsibilities are wide-ranging and are often a source of litigation for business organizations. Understanding these duties and the associated cost of avoiding harm to others is therefore of great concern to leaders. This week’s prompt will ask you to look at a particular scenario and describe the various liabilities that exist.

DISCUSSION QUESTION (200 words) Please carefully read the following story and identify and explain all the tort liabilities that may exist for all involved parties. For each, be sure to identify the tort, the plaintiff, and the defendant and say how likely it is that each could be won or lost.

Titan Fireworks, LLC is owned by Bill Smith. It operates a retail location just off a busy expressway and has by its own advertising “The Largest Assortment of the Most-Powerful Consumer-Legal Pyrotechnics East of the Mississippi”. On April 1 at noon there are 3 people in the store, Smith, and a young newlywed couple, John and Tina Brown, who are shopping for fireworks to use for a prank they plan to play on their neighbor later that day. A few minutes later, they are joined by Smith’s ex-wife, Lucinda, who is carrying a baseball bat and who walks directly up to Bill and tells him that she will “wreck the entire store, and his life” if Smith doesn’t immediately give her $1000 out of the cash register. Bill Smith has a restraining order against Lucinda that precludes her from coming to the store. Bill tells Lucinda to leave or he will call the police. In a fit of rage, she swings the bat wildly at Bill, which he manages to block with his arm, the act of which dislocates the bat from Lucinda’s grip and sends the bat flying through the air. The airborne bat hits John Brown in the back of the head and he falls to the floor, unconscious. Tina Brown suffers from a diagnosed emotional imbalance and falls to the floor in a silent fetal position at the sight of her unconscious husband. Bill Smith grabs Lucinda and drags her back to the office and locks her inside and calls 911 for both police and medical aid. in the meantime, John Brown regains consciousness and tries to console his young wife. Upon getting Tina back to her feet, John begins to walk her out to their car. Bill Smith runs to the doorway and physically blocks their exit, telling them they must wait for the police to arrive and lifts his shirt to show a handgun in his waistband. The police and ambulance arrive within 15 minutes. The police take statements, haul Lucinda to jail, and render care on site to Bill, John and Tina. Over the next few weeks, Tina needs extra psychiatric counseling and John writes a letter to the editor of the local paper saying that Bill Smith deliberately injured the Browns and that he shouldn’t be allowed to operate his business in the community. Immediately after the letter is published, Smith’s landlord terminates his lease contract for the Titan Fireworks location and his membership in the local Chamber of Commerce is suspended.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Posted in Uncategorized

Sullivan College of Technolog

Discussion Question: First, in your own words, explain the difference between a law and a regulation. Second, briefly research and identify 2 or 3 regulations that your organization or past organization is/was expected to follow. Please explain them and their impact on your organization in terms of whether the organization sees compliance as a value-add or as a cost. Third, under what circumstances would it be reasonable to be out of compliance with any regulation?

MY ANSWER; A law can be defined as a rule that is put to govern and regulate everyone equally. Laws are put to apply to everyone in a state. On the other side, Regulations enforce a law to hold organizations under a certain agency. The agency has to be a governmental agency, and it does not require to follow the billing process. One of the regulations that the Ford Motor company assembly plant was expected to follow is environmental regulations. Compliance with these emission laws meant an increase in the cost of production. Ford Motor Company sells its vehicles worldwide, which means that it designs cars that do not need to be adjusted to fit different states’ emission laws which is expensive (Boston academic publishing 2013). The other regulation is the corporate average fuel economy regulation. Ford had to make cars that were safe and fuel-efficient as well. It means that they had to use new technologies to develop effective car models, which is an additional expense. The only reason why noncompliance would be reasonable is if the regulation does not apply to the type of business you are in. There are acts and rules for different business sets, but not all of them are applicable. Therefore, intentional omission of that regulation would be reasonable.

Boston academic publishing (2013). Business law and the legal environment version. Inc., d.b.a. FlatWorld. All right reserved.

DIRECTIONS; RESPOND TO FOUR CLASSMATES…. 100 WORDS. MAKE RESPONSES RELATABLE TO MY ANSWER AND ASK FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS THAT RELATE TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD.

RESPONSE ONE…I would agree that laws are sot more to govern individuals and that regulations are more focused on governing organizations. I believe that law affects both individuals and organizations, but that regulation are indeed much more concerned with governing organizations.

You use the word “regulate” in describing how laws are different from regulations, yet regulate is the root word of regulation. I find the word “protect” would work better in that sentence as a descriptor of laws. What are your thoughts? do you agree?

I agree that business or market irrelevance is a reasonable reason to disregard a regulation. I heard through the grapevine, that some people have changed the definition of what they create or what kind of business they are in to argue irrelevance when facing a regulation. For instance, if there is a regulation that states one must have a license or sell prepared food, so a clever person decides to sell boxed food where after the transaction its expected the buyer will ask the seller to cook their newly purchased food. This way the seller is selling non-prepared food and just being a nice person when asked to cook it. What are your thoughts on this kind of tactic to get around regulations and make them seem irrelevant?

RESPONSE TWO….I liked your generalization that laws are meant to govern people and regulations are meant to govern organizations. I think that is an apt way to look at it for our purposes in this class. When I think of motor company and transportation regulations, I think of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). What agency specifically set the regulations that you mentioned?

Your post lead me to think about United States regulations verses international regulations. Ford Motor company sells cars worldwide and therefore must have to deal with many varied regulations from many different countries. A company that is currently national and considering expanding internationally would have to consider whether their are any regulations on their industry in the countries they are looking to expand to. Additionally, a company would have to consider that countries employment laws and regulations if the company plans to have employees in their new business territory. This could make company growth much more difficult, even when expanding to countires nearby like Canada or Mexico.

RESPONSE THREE…Correct laws are pertaining to whoever is under their control. While regulations are focused on if you work under an agency’s control so It could be where you live versus where you work.

As far as the emission laws don’t Ford have a California model that meets stricter OSHA guidelines allowing them to be sold in California? These emissions laws really could hurt companies like Ford and Dodge whose big sellers trucks(especially diesel trucks) struggle to meet CAFE standards. I believe Volkwagon was just sued because their engineers were making the data look like it passed the tests but in reality, they did not.

In this case, it wasn’t theat they didnt follow the regulation but the blantantly tried to counter act it and hide what they had done. So in reality their is no reason to be out of compliance of a regulation unless the person out of compliance has not been at work.

RESPONSE FOUR….Eryn, why do you think these regulations were permitted to pass and then be enforced? Are these regulations constitutional? Do you think they would be defendable if they were challenged and fought in court?I also noticed the same issue as Brendan seemed to notice which was the discrepancy between regulate and regulation. However I disagree when describing regulation as protect. I think enforce is more appropriate although I wouldn’t be surprised if something in the middle made the most sense.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Posted in Uncategorized

Sullivan College of Technolog

QUESTION;

In Colorado, on December 10, 2012 it became legal for any individual age 21 or older to possess up to an ounce a marijuana for “any purpose”. On January 1, 2014 it became legal for people to purchase marijuana from licensed retail outlets. In addition, while marijuana is still a federally prohibited substance, President Obama directed federal law enforcement agencies to refrain from enforcing the federal law in Colorado and other states that have legalized recreational marijuana. As a consequence, several new legal issues may arise.

Using your understanding of the concepts from Chapter 4, explain in as much detail as possible whether each of the following complaints would succeed or fail on Constitutional grounds. Do not rely on outside research for your original response.

1. The Attorneys General of Nebraska and Oklahoma argue that the Colorado law makes it easier for their state’s residents and other state’s residents who are traveling through their states to obtain marijuana which will increase their law enforcement costs. Therefore they petition the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Colorado law.

2. The Attorney General of Florida argues that Colorado’s law makes it a more attractive vacation destination, thereby harming Florida’s commerical interests in violation of the Commerce Clause and demands the law be overturned.

3. The Colorado business association representing the marijuana industry spends several million dollars on public advertising and activities to get pro-legalization measures placed on several other state’s ballots and to elect pro-legalization representatives to both state and federal office. A concerned citizens association in one of these states charges that the consequences of these ads and activities will endanger the public health and welfare of the state’s residents and it asks the state court to prohibit these ads and activities.



MY ANSWER;

In Colorado, the law in the constitution allows persons above 21years old to consume or be in passion of a limited quantity of marijuana. The government facilitates the licensing of marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, and processing facilities, testing farcicalities, and distribution and retailing. However, there are regulations and rules for using marijuana. In section 16. Article 5(e) of the constitution a licensed marijuana operator should establish a marijuana operation within the locality’s boundaries, and only licensed individuals are allowed to carry out these operations. Therefore, Oklahoma and Nebraska Attorney General may not succeed in prohibiting the use of marijuana in Colorado because the state of Colorado will argue that it has put strict regulation of the marijuana operation to be done only within the locality.

The argument from Florida’s Attorney General will be treated as null and void because it does not have bases. After understanding the Colorado law as it is clearly stated in the constitution, section 16 article 1(a), the purpose of legalizing cannabis is to give people freedom just like they have freedom in taking alcohol. Therefore, the law is not about the state attracting tourists, but it is based on personal choices. The tourists, just like in any other states they come to Colorado without being coursed but out of their own will.

In section 16, Article 5 (a) on regulation number (vIII), the constitution prohibits the advertisement and displaying of marijuana. This is a prohibition to persuading people to purchase marijuana. Therefore, the claim about marijuana being advertised is already addressed in the constitution as illegal, and in case there is an operator or individual doing an advertisement, it is illegal. The state passed the marijuana law not to coax people to use it but to give them the freedom to make a personal choice and that is why on the package there is a list of risks that come along with marijuana use. The state has the right to take the step of punishing such an individuaL

RESPOND TO TWO PEOPLE; ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS IN GOOD DETAILS AND PLEASE REFERENCE MY ORIGINAL POST

Great post…RESPONSE 1.

Concerning the first case, do you think a strong case could be made to argue that Colorado is not enforcing strict regulation? If hypothetically a strong case was found that Colorado was not enforcing strict regulations, do you think this might be enough to get a win for Nebraska and Oklahoma?

You mention that the legalization of marijuana had more to do with providing people the freedom of choice than economic gain from interstate transactions (tourists). Do you not think the same logic and argument could be applied to other drugs like cocaine? If freedom of choice is such a strong legal precedence, why is cocaine illegal? And could the same arguments against the legalization of cocaine not be made about drugs like marijuana? I personally think that no drugs should be illegal because we should have the freedom under the constitution to make our own decisions about how we use our bodies. My body, my choice, if people want to use drugs, who are we to try and stop them?

RESPONSE TWO

Do you think that Nebraska and Oklahoma could have a case and have the Supreme Court rule Colorado’s marijuana law unconstitutional if the states brought up the commerce clause? Could there be evidence that the legalization of marijuana in Colorado is causing a burden to both Nebraska and Oklahoma? Or is there no tie between the legalization of marijuana in one state and the potential disruption of commerce in the surrounding states?

For question 3, if the advertisements were not promoting marijuana at all, just the candidates (with no written information about their campaign, including their support for the legalization of marijuana), would the section of the constitution you cited still be valid for an unconstitutional ruling?

Great post!

Responses: A reminder, our goal in responses is to “seek to expand, clarify, or question the original post and are not repetitive of others’ responses.” Agreeing and alternative scenarios have some value but they don’t usually cause the initial poster to think more deeply about their strategy. Our aim is to encourage each other to think more broadly about our suggestions and opinions. To do so encourages greater learning, which a great strength of a cohort. The simplest strategy for accomplishing this is to ask specific questions about the initial post. These questions can be substantive or procedural but they should press the originator to think more broadly.

RESPONSE 3…ZARAH

For situation one, I believe that this complaint might pass on Constitutional grounds. When medical marijuama was legalized in California, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was ruled unconstitutional becasue the marijuana use was only in one state (Mayer, 2014). This could also apply in this situation because Colorado was the only state allowing adults to possess marijuana, but Congress was later given the authority to prohibit marijuana because it was a part of certain class of activities. I feel that scenario two, is somewhat similar to this since it is also based on a state wanting Colorado’s law overturned because they think it may cause harm to their state in some way. With this, the complaint may pass, but it really all depends on the arguement that is formed for each side. In my opinion, I think that more states should follow in Colorado’s foot steps because people are already using marijuana and regulating it could make it more safe to use instead of buying it from people that they may not know. Situation three would fail in my opinion because I’m not sure that a citizens association has much power over how the state uses it’s money. I feel that these are usually the people who are not open minded and tend to only think of one side which will not always get you the outcome that you want.

RESPONSE FOUR….MAL

1. The Attorneys General of Nebraska and Oklahoma argue that the Colorado law makes it easier for their state’s residents and other state’s residents who are traveling through their states to obtain marijuana which will increase their law enforcement costs. Therefore they petition the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Colorado law.

“The commerce clause is the basis on which the federal government regulates interstate economic activity”(Mayer 20212). When Californina had passed the Compassionate Users Act, legalizing marijuna for medical use, this conflicted with medical use. In the Gonzales v. Raich (2005) case. It was majority ruled that Congress can regulate activities with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority ruled Congress could ban local marijuana, but the problem in this complaint is not about something local being regulated. This complaint would not stand on constitutional grounds because there is not an economic exchange between states, therefore it is not constitutional to regulate who can visit from what state.

2. The Attorney General of Florida argues that Colorado’s law makes it a more attractive vacation destination, thereby harming Florida’s commercial interests in violation of the Commerce Clause and demands the law be overturned.

As stated above what the commerce clause entails, is the regulation of commerce between states and foreign nations. “Interstate commerce” can be subjective in this complaint. I am assuming the good being lost out on is tourists. But to be claiming a state as stealing your business because they have a law seen as attractive to some people is not a violation of the Constitution.

3. The Colorado business association representing the marijuana industry spends several million dollars on public advertising and activities to get pro-legalization measures placed on several other state’s ballots and to elect pro-legalization representatives to both state and federal office. A concerned citizens association in one of these states charges that the consequences of these ads and activities will endanger the public health and welfare of the state’s residents and it asks the state court to prohibit these ads and activities.

This is similar to the cigarette warning legislature that was passed in the 1960’s, there is when the federal government required warning labels on cigarette packages. If Colorado is working on getting other states on board this could be dangerous because what they are promoting, legal marijuana, is currently against Federal Law. I could see this complaint having some weight, and influencing the ability to advertise.

Refrence


Don Mayer, Daniel Warner, George Siedel, and Jethro K. Lieberman. (2012). Business Law and the Legal Environment: Executive MBA Edition. Boston, MA: FlatWorld


Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Posted in Uncategorized

Sullivan College of Technolog

part one—Directions; Looking back at the discussion boards from the first 5 weeks of class, identify your three biggest takeaways. For each you should identify the concept, the location of the post, and an explanation of why this is important to you. answer our last discussion prompt which is based on reviewing some of our previous discussions, and give at least 2 quality responses to your classmate’s posts. 150 words or less

Response 1

I liked the topic about the constitutional matters about the legalization in Colorado. To me, that really was a good chapter because I really didnt know much about the subject matter when I started that particular study. I learned a lot and the part that stuck out also was that Florida couldnt really do much about their issue due to the commerce clause. They were whining and crying that Colorado would steal their tourism because they passed marijuana so that everybody that didnt grow out of smoking pot when they were twelve years old could now go spend more money on this garbage than they use to with their drug dealer on the side of the street corner that was lacing it to make the high better so that you would keep coming back to him. I honestely never even knew about the commerce clause. I really liked how amazing it is for ensuring that certain states could do things without hinderance of other states. Also, the fact about discrimination of people coming and going from across state lines was intriguing to me. The supremacy clause and preempt was really interesting because so long as things didnt interfere with federal law, the states could pretty much do whatever they wanted.

Response 2

he concept of “The Constitution“ that is displayed discussion board four, is one of my biggest takeaways from this course. Being able to analyze and apply the Constitution to real life issues that could arise was new experience for me. My Bachelor’s degree is in Biology, so the classes I have been taking at Northwood have been very new and challenging. This particular discussion board took me completely out of my comfort zone and provoked me to think in a different way. I learned more about laws and how and where they can be applied. This assignment also, helped me to work on developing persuasive arguments.

In week five, we discussed the difference between regulation and law. This is was an important takeaway for because it afforded me the opportunity to develop a sound comparison and distinction between the two. Their processes are different, as well as where they are mandated from. Laws are also rules that govern everyone equally, while regulations only effect those who deal directly with the agency who is enforcing them.

Week Three, “The Legal Process”, was the most challenging for me, so of course how could I forget it! Briefing a case is not for the weak. Through completing this assignment I gain knowledge about cases and as well as other concepts like “standing” and using the IRAC method.

Directions; part two— 150 words or less…. read Chapters 23 and 24 in the textbook on employment and labor law,

1) Define and briefly explain the logic behind the concept of employment-at-will.

2) How do the laws surrounding organized labor support, modify, or conflict with this concept?

3) Is it possible that one approach to staffing would be preferable over the other, or is it dependent on specific circumstances faced by the organization? Explain. RESPOND TO 3 CLASSMATES AND BE SURE TO ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION THAT SPECIFICALLY RELATES TO THE DISCUSSION TOPIC AND THEIR POST.

Response 1

For the staffing model what would be the benefit of a union shop? I may be a little bias in that I work in a non-union shop that pays very well and the team members are protected from discrimination by our HR departments use of the Title VII laws. Why would someone pay a third party to mediate an issue? I could see if the job was a special skill like pipefitters who usually are already in a union but otherwise I see no benefit to the team member.

Response 2

You are absolutely correct in your definition of employment-at-will. Concerning the list of “bad reasons” an employer can not fire an employee over; do you think this list is too short, or too long? In other words, do you think there should be more things that are illegal for companies to fire people over? Or do you think there are too many things on the “bad reasons” list and It could use seme taken off?

I agree that no two companies are exactly alike, and different places have different needs. What works for some, does not work for all. Do you think there are companies that should strictly only used unions, or only employment-at-will employees? Why do you think this is, or is not the case?

Response 3

An employee at will is a law that most employers use to allow them to be able to fire an employee for little to no reason. This is also true for the employee because they are free to leave the employer at any time and due to any reason. Organized labor conflicts with the concept of employee at well because a union acts as a mediator between the employer and the employee. Working in a union allows employees to negotiate for better benefits and working conditions. I feel that this may contradict the rules of employment at will laws because it could cause people to think that they are being let go for attempting to change something about the organization. Also, the union is separate from the employer so the employee could not be controlled by the employer. I think that employment out well would be favorable to labor unions because there isn’t a mediator. An employee can speak directly with their employer as well as the employer to the employee which makes things more simple for everyone. It is much more common and gives employees the chance to seek different employment on their own terms rather than having to negotiate for better opportunities.



MY ANSWER FOR PART ONE

The first thing that stood out is the distinction between natural law and law positivism, discussed in week one. It is crucial to differentiate between how Natural rights in practice varies widely throughout civilizations. Thus many individuals will certainly find it unfair to some positive legislation in any nation. This issue is particularly crucial for regulations such as prohibited drugs or religious freedom, on which there is no worldwide consensus.

The comparison of Aristotle’s virtue ethics and Josephson’s fundamental principles, covered in week two, is the second key takeaway from the discussions. It stood out because it is widely thought that positive and natural law coincides in a society controlled by law rather than tyranny, as a positive law contradictory to natural law would never be approved by the law, and citizens would see no reason for obedience to it if it were passed

The third take-out issue is the Colorado Marijuana Law, addressed during the fourth week. The understanding of marijuana offenses is important. While smoking marijuana is legal, rules still exist around the permissible quantity of medicinal products for personal use. Penalties depend on the extent to which a person possesses marijuana.



MY ANSWER FOR PART TWO

1) Define and briefly explain the logic behind the concept of employment-at-will.

Employment-at-will will mean that an employer may at any time terminate an employee, excluding illegally or for no cause whatsoever. Likewise, a staff member is permitted for no legal repercussions to leaving a post at any time. Employment also indicates that an employer can end a connection with an employee at any moment without notice or impact. For example, employers can modify their compensation, cancel or limit their time off payments. The United States rule exposes employees to arrest, unexpected dismissal, a reduced schedule of work or a call-up based onthe employer’s needs, and an unannounced decrease in wages and benefits.

2) How do the laws surrounding organized labor support, modify, or conflict with this concept?

The courts, over time, have issued exceptions to ameliorate the frequently harsh effects of the presumption of will. Three main standard law exceptions are public policies, the implicit contract, and the implied good faith pact. Employees are safeguarded against adverse employment measures that contravene the public interest according tothe most commonly recognized exception to the presumption of will. This exemption to the common law is linked to the below exception for retaliation, and both may overlap. Some courts have refused to acknowledge a particular public policy wrong where a legislative remedy is available.

3) Is it possible that one approach to staffing would be preferable over the other, or is it dependent on specific circumstances faced by the organization? Explain.

A staffing model may be appropriate for one situation but not for another. Choosing a legitimate staffing model is influenced not only by the model’s characteristics but also by the clarity and precision with which the organizational goals connected with the modeling endeavor are articulated. Models can give crucial information about the resources needed to fulfill organizational goals and assist resource allocation decisions; nevertheless, neither modeling nor any strategy depending only on staffingmanagement tools will guarantee optimal staffing. It is the responsibility of the organization to select and apply the most helpful model.




















RES

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Posted in Uncategorized

Sullivan College of Technolog

I’m trying to study for my Law course and I need some help to understand this question.

Directions…respond to each person and be sure to ask a follow up question that relates to the chapter that also allows deeper thinking. 100 words

Question

This week’s discussion is open ended. Looking at the information in Chapters 11 and 12, identify 2 agency concepts from each chapter that have impacted or could potentially impact you or your organization. For each, please explain the concept and how it did or might apply within a particular example. When you respond to others’ posts, please try not to repeat your discussion from your orignial post.

response one

Great post! I agree, agents revealing confidential information to competitors could potentially affect an organization. The agent’s duty should require him or her to preserve confidential information.

Is a former agent of your organization, in the absence of contract, allowed to compete with the organization if the agent does not use information learned in the course of his employment with the organization?

Response two

Chapter 11 discusses the relationship between a principal and an agent, and in chapter 12 the relationship between an agent, principal, and third party are discussed. There was a handful of information given to us in these chapters that I was able to relate back to my own individual experiences, just because working at a large resort there are many different forms of agents throughout the organization. First off, I was able to identify where I fall in the agent category. I am a general agent for my organization, Deer Valley, I do have limitations but I also have appointed specific tasks, and the authority to carry out tasks on behalf of the resort. An example of some of my tasks I am responsible for is obtaining business licenses for the new owners following the sale of their condo at our resort. We obtain the license because the condo will be rented and managed by us, because of the profit it is legally a business entity. I also manage the rental agreement contracts between Deer Valley and the owners. In the rental agreement I ask for dates of stay from the owner, realistically I have the knowledge of when the condo will be vacant. As an agent if I were to take advantage of this knowledge, stay in the condo, perhaps throw a party and cause damages. The resort could be vicariously liable because I did not enter into the contract as an individual but as an agent for the principal.

A large resort with many employees that are categorized as “servants”, this can create many opportunities for torts. These fall under the master servant doctrine, this is “an employer is liable for torts committed by the employee in the scope of employment” (Mayer 2014). At Deer Valley we offer a complimentary shuttle service. When driving a company vehicle, employee’s are under Deer Valley insurance, if an accident was caused by an employee during their scope of duties the principal will be held liable. This idea is generally related to the deep pocket theory, meaning a business typically will have deep enough pockets to cover financial compensations. “A million-dollar industrial accident is within the means of a company or its insurer; it is usually not within the means of the agent—employee—who caused it” (Mayer 2014).

Mayer, D. Warner, D. Siedel, G. Lieberman, J. (2014). Business Law and the Legal Environment (Version 1). Washington, DC: Flat World.

Response three

A statue of limitations is a law requiring a lawsuit to be filed within a specified period of years. In my organization we are required to take an annual sexual harassment course. The course explains the statue of limitations to file a compliant or report harassment. According to the course, an associate must file a complaint or charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Department within 300 days of the harassment.

My employer has entered into excusive dealing agreements with many manufacturers / vendors. The agreement was like the text describes, the vendor agreed not to sell to other retailers and a percentage of the profits were paid to the vendor. We have also experienced having to pull certain brands off the shelf because the brand entered an exclusive dealing agreement with another retailer, Walmart.

My husband and I decided to start a small trucking company, we both applied for a commercial driver’s license (CDL). We were required to take a written exam, driving test, and acquire a medical examiners certification. To renew the CDL you are required to take all tests and acquire an updated medical exam certification. According to the text, this is a regulatory license. Regulatory licenses are intended to protect the public. Drivers are frequently examined and tested to protect the safety of the public.

The usury statue is defined as one that sets the maximum allowable interest that may be charged on a loan; usury is charging illegal interest rates. I experienced this with a previous lender, I was illegally charged a higher interest rate on a mortgage loan for more than 4 years. The court ruled the lender’s practices were illegal and I was later reimbursed.

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount

Posted in Uncategorized