Business Law Essay

1. Assume that the state of Ohio passed a hazardous waste statute, seeking to protect the general public and workers. The state statute did not violate the Commerce Clause because it imposed no restriction on interstate commerce. Both the state statute and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) established job safety standards and specified worker training and employer licensing, but the requirements differed. Which statute(s) Ohio corporations had to obey? Pick the best ANALYSISwer.

In order to advise Billy in whether he is entitled to the extra $20,000 and a share in the farm, the key facts and relevant issues must be examined to determine if the elements of a legally binding contract exists. Whether there was an agreement and intention to create legal relations between the two will be used to determine whether Choy has breached a contract between the two. If a contract is found to

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

In the Hoffman Vs. Sun Valley Company case, where the Sun Valley Company won, despite there being an oral agreement. The prerequisite memorandum form for the sale of the Rudd Mountain property, was not signed to fully close the deal. Thus, the oral agreement was declared void by failure to comply with the statute of frauds.

1. Give an example of a case that would fall under diversity jurisdiction. Explain all of the key elements of such a case.

She felt content with an employment agreement that mirrored the property rules of the Netherlands. Henry paid an annual fee each March in silver to the Frankfort Land Company. He maintained the right to cultivate the land and enjoy its profits, but the payments to the central authority never ended. The right to rent the land pass's to Henry's heirs. 1

this case could be an tricky in the court, because in the contract they only

3. For a crime to be committed, the prosecutor must be able to prove a criminal intent and an overt act to carry out that intent. Jack and Mary agreed to rob a series of banks. Prior to beginning their bank robbery spree, they were arrested and charged with criminal conspiracy. What act did Jack and Mary do that justifies a finding that they committed the crime? Explain.

In the case of Anthony, a New Jersey resident and owner of a waste disposal company in the state of New Jersey, and his two business associates, Paul and Silvio, whom suffered severe injuries due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a negligent truck driver; they have great standing to sue against the neglectful driver and the company associated with the ownership of the vehicle. Regardless of the diversity of their residency/ citizenship, the affected party can proceed to sue the corporation responsible for the damages caused by their staff and property; reason being that they are protected under the Constitution’s diversity of citizenship, and the privileges and immunities clause. Furthermore, these two constitutional clauses in addition to the commerce clause, dictate the court that the matter needs to be brought to.

Please answer the questions posed at the end of each case study in essay form.  Each essay will be judged on your capacity to present strong, logical discussions that support your conclusions.

The organisation, Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd, claimed a dairy farm in New South Wales. The Husband, in his ability as executive of the organisation, exchanged title of the land to both himself and his wife as joint occupants in like manner. The spouse later moved his enthusiasm for the property to his wife for $1. An Application was brought by the organisation against the spouse and wife in the New South Wales Supreme Court looking for that the property be exchanged back to the organisation because of fraudulent activities of the spouse. The trial judge requested that the spouse pay remuneration to the organisation, however dismissed the procedures against the wife as she herself was not a knowing party to the fraud.

There are many ideas about the correct basis for contractual obligation. They include promise, consideration, and cause. All jurisdictions follow at least one. In Thomas E. Davitt’s The Elements of Law, the author articulates a very credible argument for the basis for contractual obligation being one of those named above. Davitt simplifies the arguments for all of these and names one correct basis: the promise itself. Generally Thomas E. Davitt, S.J., The Elements of Law, 272 (1959). This paper will argue in favor of Davitt’s writings. The basis for contractual obligation is the promise itself. In order to effectively argue in favor of one basis over the possible others, it is necessary to discuss and rule out the others.

No. A contract to convey the real property does not exist between Heikkila and McLaughlin. A written offer does not evidence a completed contract and a written acceptance is required. Minnesota has applied the “mirror image rule” in analyzing acceptance of offers. Under that rule, an acceptance must be coextensive with the offer and may not introduce additional terms or conditions. Heikkila’s alterations of the Purchase Agreements constituted a rejection of McLaughlin’s offer and constituted a counter offer. Heikkila withdrew the counter offer before McLaughlin provided a written acceptance of the counter offer. Only a written acceptance byMcLaughlin of the exact written terms proposed by Heikkila on the Purchase Agreements would have created

Numerous pieces of evidence led me to my conclusion about the contract in question. The first item of business a judge would attend to when making a decision is to decide whether a contract is present between any of the parties, and who those parties are. The contract under examination is between buyers Jon and Marsha and the seller Boren Deal. The documents pertaining to this case include the REPC as well as Addendum No. 1 which states the seller’s terms, and Addendum No. 2, the

The “cow case” became a very famous case in 1887, and for generations after that, law students have study this particular case. Part of the appeal of this case is the simplicity of it and country settings, which is two farmers bargaining about the price of a cow.