Sara Ross

Business Law Final Part 2

12/9/18
1. Under the Civil rights act of 1964 also known as Title VII, it prohibits discrimination

based on sex, race, color, religion, or natural origin (Barnes, 440). Employers are not

allowed to used these differences to influence their decisions to fire, hire, fix pay rates, or

promote individuals. In this case, the gym manager had no right to ask about Mike’s

sexual orientation because doing so violates Title VII. In court, Mike would have a case

because he was asked about his sexual orientation in the hiring process which is not legal

and was then not hired after he refused to answer the question giving him a claim for

discrimination against the gym.

2. In this case, Lucy is correct. The bank is liable for the money that was stolen out of her

account. Once Lucy is reimbursed with the money that was stolen from her then Emma is

able to seek reimbursement from Lucy.

3. With chapter 7 bankruptcy a debtor’s property is transferred to a bankruptcy trustee who

then distributes the property to owed creditors. There is a 90-day rule in which the trustee

is allowed to demand the return of such payments. Meaning that if any of these payments

happened on or before 90 days of the individual filing for bankruptcy the trustee can

lawfully demand its return. These payments are known as preferential payments. If an

individual has mainly consumer debts then he is not allowed to avoid the payment unless

it is over $625 or more (Barnes, 855). With corporate debtors, payments less than 5,000

are not subject to avoidance.

4. This is a case of “respondeat superior,” which means “let the master answer. This refers

to liability placed on employers for injuries their employees cause while working within
 the course of their employment (Barnes, 1011). Lisa was on duty when she slapped Paul

and caused damage to his eye. However, she slapped Paul because he was talking about

her brother which has nothing to do with the Transit Agency. Lisa caused harm to Paul

acting on her own behalf not the behalf of her employer. The only way for the transit

agency to become liable is if her actions happened within the scope of employment. The

only way that Paul could make a claim would be if her actions were on the employer’s

behalf which they were not.

5. Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code deals with the sale of goods. This section

states that what is expected should be awarded meaning that technical rules are not

always followed. For the past 8 years Sergei and Mike have had an agreement for

100,000 bushels at $6.00 a bushel. With the drought prices rose to $12.00 and Sergei

decided that he wanted 200,000 bushels at the original price which was not the original

agreement of price or bushels for either party. Under the UCC Article 2 it states that both

parties are responsible for their original agreement (Barnes, 160).

6. The microchips arrived 16 days after they were promised in the contract. Since the seller

did not conform to the contract the buyer, Cooper had the right to reject the goods. In this

case, Cooper rejected the goods within a reasonable amount of time and informed

Bradley his reasoning for rejecting the good therefore Bradley does not have a claim for

payment. (Barnes, 361)

7. Natalia has a strong claim if the third party which in this case is Kleinfeld’s is unaware

that she has been terminated. Since the negotiations were in the works for two months

prior to Natalia’s termination and made on her terms there is no evidence that Kleinfeld’s

knew that she had been terminated. If no notice was given to the third-party Natalia is
 entitled to her 6% because she was the person who initially entered into negotiations with

Kleinfeld’s.

8. Price fixing is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Price fixing can be direct

agreements among competitors about what price to sell a product, quantities to be

produced, offered for sale or brought (Barnes, 915). Price fixing is illegal and under no

circumstances can be justified. Since Lindenwood can provide proof that they paid

$1,500,00 more than it purchased from its distributors, they should be able to file a claim

and receive damages for the money that they lost.

9. The sexual harassment being displayed is quid pro quo harassment meaning that a person

in a superior role (Ross being head barista) uses their role to make sexual advances at

another employee (Barnes 440). In this case I would tell Rachel that it would be hard to

file a claim for sexual harassment because she not tell a Supervisor who in this case

would be Chandler about the harassment that was going on. In order to file a claim its

important to have enough evidence and a large part of that evidence is reporting the

harassment to the supervisor to give them the opportunity to correct the behavior.

Essay Questions

1. The Americans with Disability Act prohibits discrimination against

individuals with disabilities. Covered employers under the ADA are required to make

reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, The ADA protects

individuals who qualify with a disability against discrimination because of that

disability. A disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that limits an

individual’s ability to perform major life functions (Barnes 443). An individual who

is qualified is someone who can perform the essential job functions with or without
reasonable accommodations (Barnes 443). The term reasonable accommodations are

determined by what the employer can do in reference to accommodating the

employee so there are able to perform the activities of the job.

UPS tried various ways to accommodate Tommy’s needs from trying to find

him a different position to ultimately offering him a part-time job. Reasonable

accommodations are determined by the company under the ADA. The company

determines the reasonable accommodations based on what they can do as a company

to accommodate their workers. Therefore, under the ADA, UPS is not required to

keep Tommy in his current position if they are not able to accommodate him in that

specific role. Tommy requested a job with less hours as a part of the accommodations

that he needed. UPS offered him a part time position which would be less hours, but it

was hos choice to turn it down. Therefore, I do not believe that Tommy has a claim

against Lindenwood under the ADA.

2. With the facts presented, Roger, Molly and Ed present solid evidence with

them not having to sign a non-compete or non-solicitation agreement when they

started working for the company. Duty of loyalty refers to the expectation of

employees to always act in the best interest of the company. With doing so,

employees are expected to avoid conflict of interest or any dealings that are for self-

gain rather than beneficial to the company. Roger, Molly, and Ed violated their duty

of loyalty by planning for their new company while working at Lindenwood Grain.

The three of them waited until each aspect of their plan were together and then chose

to quick and take the skills that they learned while working at Lindenwood Grain with

them.
 In regard to loyalty what they did was wrong, and it does lawfully violate their

duty of loyalty because they did not only take the customers but they used the

company skills and ideas to obtain Lindenwood Grains customers. However, as

previously stated, Roger, Molly, and Ed never signed an agreement stating that they

wouldn’t ever go start their own company or work for a similar company because

when they were hired that was not required of them. In my opinion, yes there is a

claim that they violated their duty of loyalty but at the same time there could be a

question of what exactly their duty was because nothing that required them to do

anything other than what they did was ever signed there for making all ideas and

customers within the company free game.

3. In order to prove that this is true one would have to look at the value of the

shares specifically the stated capital. Stated capital is calculated by multiplying the

par value and the number of shares outstanding (Barnes, 539). If shares are ever

issued below the stated value or par value, the stated value would be bigger than the

actual value of the company (Barnes, 538). The Board of Directors and the

corporation are liable if shares are ever sold at an undervalued price.

In this case, Max owned 75% of Hinkley Chemical Company meaning that

the other 25% was still own by the company its self. Since Max owned so much of

the company and brought in 5 new board member which is a majority it makes him

responsible for their actions. In order for Hinckley to sell their shares they would

have had to get approval from the board. Meaning, Max Capital Assets and Max

Axelrod knew how much they were selling the rest of their shares for and if the price

was undervalued in turn that does make MCA and MA liable. If the Board of
Directors was kept the same when Max bought 75% of HCC it is possible that Max

would not be liable but still less likely. However, the shareholders also must prove

that the stock was undervalued at the time it was sold. With them filing a law suit

much later it is possible that they are unaware of what the proper price should have

been, and the courts could look at the time frame and not side in their favor. I think

that if Max knows that something was wrong with the price the shares were sold for

he should workout some kind of deal with the minority shareholders of HCC because

if he lost the case he could potentially lose a lot of money.

4. The question states that Jerry is a part of a general partnership. In a general

partnership, everyone is part owner and has a right to the profits of the business. With

a general partnership each partner is personably liable for any losses suffered by the

business even if they exceed the individual partners contribution to the company. In

the question it first states that Jerry was legally intoxicated when he ran over Luis but

then goes on to say that he was also texting a client at the time of the accident. Since

Jerry was texting a Client at the time of the accident Betty does have a case against

the partnership. When Jerry hit Luis, he was participating in company business which

caused him to harm another individual which in part makes the partnership liable as

well.

Betty can sue the partnership because of Luis actions however she is unable to

sue Tom and Josiah. Even though Tom lives out of the country and has not been

active in the partnership, and assets that are a part of the partnership meaning

belonging to him, Josiah, and Jerry can be sought after by Betty. Betty can strictly go

after the partnership’s assets because at the time of the accident Jerry was operating a
vehicle in the partnerships name and in contact with a client of the company. Betty is

also entitled to go after any assets belonging to Tom and Josiah that were purchased

with partnership funds. The only assets that are off limits are Josiah and Toms

personal assets that have been purchased with their own money.