ASSIGNMENT – LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR MANAGERS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Question 1 and Answers Page 2 2. Question 2 and Answers Page 2 3. Question 3 and Answers Page 4 4. Question 4 and Answers Page 6 5. Question 5 and Answers Page 7 6. Question 6 and Answers Page 12 1. QUESTION 1 State any rights in which the Employment Act 1955 gives exclusive protection to female employees. 1.1. ANSWER 1 As stipulated in Employment Act 1955: a) Under Section 34(1)‚ employers
Premium Contract
Chapter 1 Realties about the Regulation of Employment generally you do not have a right to your job once hired‚ employer may choose to fire you as long as termination isn’t in violation of a contract as an employer‚ you may fire someone for any reason that’s not illegal make sure termination is not a basis of discrimination legal protections granted to employees seek to make the power relationshi p btwn employer + employee one that’s fair and equitable Is Regulation Necessary? Title 7 of
Premium Employment
ACME FIREWORKS Acme Fireworks Acme Fireworks businesses choices allow the business to grow or will it dictate the demise of the future of Acme Fireworks Company? Is there a choice to be unsuccessful or just what the rest of the business world already knows. This will be a collaboration of how and why different laws and decisions affect a business. The company is going to explore protecting itself‚ or going to make a poor legal decision that could either cost the company its business
Premium Contract Law Business law
Case Scenarios: Grocery‚ Inc.‚ Presentation LAW/521 February 3‚ 2014 Stuart Schwartz Case Scenarios: Grocery‚ Inc.‚ Presentation Grocery‚ Inc. Uniform Commercial Code The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applies to sales contracts that are agreements for the sale of tangible‚ moveable goods (Melvin‚ Chapter 8‚ 2011). Therefore‚ the UCC Article 2 would apply to Grocery Inc. and the different vendors that are making agreements‚ but only if the contract was missing or had open terms. “Article
Premium Contract Uniform Commercial Code Law
Chapter 3 Offer and Acceptance 1 The offer (1) Invitation to treat An invitation to treat is essentially an initial appproach to others inviting them to make an offer which may or may not be accepted. e.g. The taking of articles from the shelves by the customer would normally constitute an offer to buy and not the acceptance by her or him of an offer to sell.(Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd) (2) Unilateral offers If the offer is made to the world at large
Premium Contract
common intention trusts‚ as decided in Lloyds Bank v Rosset? Do all of these areas of equity and trusts law make full and complete sense to you? Chattels‚ cohabitees‚ charities‚ cy pres‚ discretionary trusts‚ express trusts‚ fixed trusts‚ donees‚ estoppel - (promissory and proprietary) easements‚ the formalities requirements for trusts and fiduciary duties? Are you fully compus mentus with regards to knowing receipt‚ knowing assistance‚ legatees‚ mutual wills‚ nominees‚ overreaching‚ overriding‚ perpetuities
Premium Trust law
MJC/Barney’s-NSH/Hermès: Applicable law: • Bonebrake: The handbags are the predominant thrust of the agreement‚ and they fit in a shopping cart similar to UCC Coffee cans. UCC applies. §2-105. Enforceability: Offer §2-104(1): o NSH’s owner manifested his willingness to bargain when he met with buyers from MJC. Moreover‚ he said‚ “I am happy to have you buy all the bags we make for $8‚000 each‚ just as we have done for the past several years.” Acceptance §2-104(1): o The head buyer from MJC accepted
Premium Contract law Contract
for agreeing to the change. OR Seal or deed If the variation is made by way of seal or deed‚ there is no further requirement that there must be fresh consideration and so the variation will be legally enforceable. OR Williams v Roffey Exception The exception was established in the case of Williams v Roffey where the defendant sub-contracted carpentry works to the plaintiff. But after some time‚ the plaintiff honestly could not go ahead‚ as he was in financial difficulties. The defendants promised
Premium Contract
employment‚ so he sold his farm at a loss to take the job. But shortly after beginning work‚ he was discharged by Sears who claimed the contract could be terminated at will. Forrer claimed that the promissory estoppel prevented Sears form terminating the contract. Under promissory estoppel a promisor may be prevented from asserting that their promise is unenforceable because the promise gave no consideration for the promise. This is applicable when the promisor makes a promise that lacks consideration
Premium Contract law Contract
misrepresentation; Silence; duty of disclosure General rule: A contracting party cannot claim relief for the failure of the other party to disclose a material fact. In other words‚ there is no duty of disclosure and silence is not a basis for relief. Exceptions to this rule: 1) A statement is literally true but gives rise to a false
Premium Contract Contract law