Acc 556 Case Summary

Mr. Potbelly holds a garage sale at his home. Mr. Slim Jim stops by the sale and upon noticing a rare piece of art pottery offers a price of $100 for the art that is marked $250. Mr. Potbelly accepts Mr. Slim Jim’s offer. Mr. Potbelly informs Mr. Slim Jim he is selling his home because he is moving up north because he has lost his job. Mr. Slim Jim asks how much he is selling it for and Mr. Potbelly informs him he is thinking $75,000. Mr. Slim Jim offers him $70,000 cash for the property which Mr. Potbelly immediately accepts the offer. Mr. Slim Jim informs Mr. Potbelly that he will be back in one hour with a cashiers’ check made payable to Mr. Potbelly. Mr. Potbelly says “Great!” and that while Mr. Slim Jim

The Private Equity Partnerships (PEPs) agreement contains mechanisms to align the interest of general partners (GPs) with those of the limited partners (LPs): performance incentives and direct means of control. In the case of Accel VII, we are interested in how the performance incentives align both the interest of the general and limited partners. They include the terms of the general partners’ compensation structure and calculations of management fees and carried interest. These details can significantly affect the general partners’ incentive to engage in behavior that does not maximize value for investors.

As indicated by the scenario it seems that the decision problem is a matter if the accounting systems annual conference that is previously scheduled to occur on September 13-16,2005 should be canceled, due to the fact Hurricane Katrina has occurred and demolished building and homes leaving them in ruin in the city of New Orleans, Louisiana. The primary issue thus becomes does the board or committee moves the conference to a future date or have conference at another location that would thus incur higher costs for hotel for patrons of the conference in addition to it would be a price increase for flights that were already scheduled to New

Starting from the beginning, the original post the sale, on November 1, Dr. Peters wanted to sell 850 tubes of toothpaste. In the sale ad it states "Write me if wanting to accept". Therefore, Sam did in fact put a check in the mail the same day, November 1. This is considered to be a part of the mailbox rule in which "an acceptance sent via the postal system or by courier is effective when sent" ((Luizzo, A., 2016, pg. 127). Therefore, the acceptance of the sale is a contract between Sam and Dr. Peters. However, a written contract should have followed; as it states in the Statutes of Fraud that in order to be legally binding, sales dealing with "personal property of $500 or more" must "be in writing to be legally enforceable" (Luizzo, A., 2016, pg. 201). The two parties have entered into a valid and express contract.

was later found by the buyers to contain more than $30,000 in cash, how did the court

0715 hours CSW arrived at the above residence and met with Hillsboro PD Officer Parchim, Officer Miller, Officer Curtis and other Hillsboro PD personnel.

At 14:32 Haring was arrested for OWI and fleeing the scene of an accident. He was taken away for booking and a Data Master Breathalyzer test.

On 9-15-17, Adrian and Len were standing at the stop sign, on a curve; waiting on their school bus around 7:15 am. The stop sign is not their destination pick up and drop off. Adrian and Len were unsupervised. Adrian and Len were out of eyesight from home. The home is around two curves. The Family Protection Specialist (Tanya) was in route to picks Adrian for his doctor (unknown) appointment on 9-15-17; when she said the two children at the stop sign. Due to the children's foster mom (Juanita) was unable to take Adrian to his doctor appointment. Juanita was asked, "Why are Adrain and Len were standing at the stop sign, unsupervised?" Juanita stated that: "They are the second grader and are older enough to be there; because they are in second grade." It is unknown what is meant by this. Adrian and Len were asked: " How often do they are left alone at the stop sign?" Adrian stated that:" Sometimes someone (unknown) is here and sometimes they do not."

The case was brought to DCFS attention when a reporter stated on 7/11/17, OPWI attempted to obtain an emergency order of protection on behalf of Kiara (age 7). Reportedly Ashley (mother) is actively using METH and also methodone she gets from a clinic, and is also involved in prostitution. Ashley told OPWI that Ashley ''can't wait outside for the bus to go to drug court because she's done bad things to people (robbed people, committed home invasion, taken people's money and drugs) and these people are after her.'' Reporter states that one of these people came to OPWI's house looking for Ashley and scared Kiara. Ashley recently got out of jail, stayed with OPWI for a couple of days, left last Friday telling Kiara she would be back in a couple of hours, didn't return

For the case 1, replacing aging air traffic system, I completely agree with the waterfall approach. Since this is considered a large project which would involve multiple vendors' contribution to the project, waterfall method seems be the right fit. In addition, I agree with the fact that the whole project will be in hands of the project manager. Therefore, success or failure of the project would fall on the project manager. Due to my limited knowledge on air traffic system, I assume such project would involve proper defined requirements, designs, implementations, and testing since safety of passengers are at stake. Therefore, any hiccups throughout the project would come back to the project manager. I also agree with your point

Predication: On 04/15/17, Asset Protection Manager(APM) Jakub Orlando received a call from Security Operation Center(SOC) regarding a burglary that took place on 04/15/17.

An individual is liable for fraudulent nondisclosure when they deliberately and intentionally conceals a material fact when there is a duty or obligation to report it. There is an obligation to disclose when the fact is one only the vendor was aware of, and the vendee was ignorant. If the failure to disclose induces the vendee to take some action that causes some damage as a result, then the vendor is liable for fraudulent

Although Bob exhibits a higher degree of ethics and legal responsibility than Stan, Mike, and John, ethics and legal responsibility are not always in alignment. In this case, John completes the order for Quality Lumber with Bob’s name on the sales order. Quality Lumber has an established client relationship with White Lumber. The current state of the economy makes the existing client relationship even more valuable. Bob suspects that the lumber that is being purchased will be used illegally as scaffold plank. Scaffold plank has to meet strict requirements and grading for safety and usage. Failure to abide by the requirements could result in accident, death, legal liability, and fraud. If the lumber being used as scaffold plank fails resulting in injury or death, then White Lumber may be held legally liable since they had firsthand knowledge about how the lumber was going to be used. It may also constitute as fraud because White Lumber is knowingly selling lumber that will be used as scaffold plank.

Cases of false affirmation occurred where the buyer was convinced to buy something by the false statements of the seller;

Lewis sold his car to a man who claimed to be Richard Greene, a popular star. The man paid by cheque, providing a film studio pass as a proof of his identity. He sold the car to Avery. The cheque had been taken from a stolen cheque book and was later dishonoured. Lewis sued Avery to recover his car. It was held that this contract cannot be voided as the plaintiff cannot show the importance of identity. The mistaken belief to the credibility of act is not sufficient.