Bus204.94: business law i[mod4 online (3/4-4/27/2013)
You have read the copy of the U.S. Constitution I posted in the Unit.
Post in this Forum as follows:
1. Provide an example of any one provision (something that is written) in the Constitution that is NOT clear (ambiguous). Explain why it is not clear.
2. Comment on classmate postings.
1. What are three differences you can identify between a Trial Court (refer to our Textbook) and Judge Cristina’s television program? [See link provided in this unit.]
2. In terms of the resolution of private disputes, what purpose does Judge Cristina serve?
3. Comment on classmate postings.
Do you agree or disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Kentucky v. King case (textbook, p.144)? Please explain.
Post in this Forum as follows:
1. In your opinion, why is there a Law of Torts?
2. Do you agree or disagree with the decision in the “McDonald’s Hot Coffee Case“?
(I posted a link to this Case in the Unit) Explain your opinion..
1. Do you agree or disagree with the decision in the Lambert case (p. 319, textbook). Explain by making EXPLICIT reference to any of the principles of Contract Law (say which one(s) you are using) that are in the Chapter. Please refer to at least some principles, and cite the page number that they are on, in order to receive a satisfactory score.
I agree with the trail court’s ruling because Lambert didn’t make a clear offer, he and Barron didn’t negotiate the terms of the offer and Barron never orally accepted his offer for consulting services under the proposed one-year arrangement with $3100 per month. (Mallor, at p. 319) A basic element of a contract was missing in this case; base on a voluntary agreement, an offer and an acceptance of that offer must be made. (Mallor, et al., at p. 318) Since the acceptance wasn’t made, there is no contract. In addition, I don’t believe that Barron had the mental capacity to accept an offer according to Lambert’s statement. Lambert stated that due to Barron’s personal problems and financial difficulties, he was concerned about his friend’s depressed mental state. (Mallor, et al., at p. 319) Another basic element of a contract is that the person must have legal capacity to contract. (Mallor, et al., at p. 318) Furthermore, due to both parties friendship prior to the unclear offer made by Lambert, it could be presumed that the advice was given freely between friends. (Mallor, et al., at p. 319) Therefore, I also agree with the court ruling that ultimately their relationship was that of a friend helping a friend. (Mallor, et al., at p. 320) Finally, Lambert did not have a case because he could not prove that he had a bilateral contractwhich states that both parties must exchange promises. (Mallor, et al., at p. 320) Nor did he have an expressed contractwhere both parties stated the terms of the oral contract. (Mallor, et al., at p. 321)
Who keeps the Engagement Ring?
Alex (“A”) proposes marriage to Barbara (“B”);
A gives B an engagement ring;
After 6 months A and B get tired of each other;
The engagement is broken off.
Who keeps the ring?
1. Post your answer and explanation. Use principles you have learned in my Lecture and Text. This is not based on your opinion alone; your conclusion MUST have a basis in the Law, therefore: YOU MUST refer to the Law and legal principles (say which one(s) and where you found them PRECISELY (“in the Textbook” is not good enough)
Please visit all the links I posted in Unit 7
1. In the disasters you saw in the photographs, what should the buyer have insisted upon in his/her contract with regard to risk of loss? Explain. You must refer to our textbook (specific terms and page numbers) in our answer.
2. What should the seller have tried to put in the contract? Explain. You must refer to our textbook (specific terms and page numbers) in your answer.
3. Comment on a classmate’s posting.
1. Make a Personal Statement about what you learned about Business Law in this Course and how it applies, or will apply, to you in any of your activities.
2. What was your “Wow” moment in this Course? (e.g., something surprising, or did not know before, etc.)