The Case of Candy Professional Orientation & Ethics October 10‚ 2012 Dr. Jarrell Smith South University The Case of Candy Candy is a 14 year old girl and she comes from a broken home with recently divorce parents. Her acting out in class may be as result of her parents being divorce. She has a boyfriend who is 15 years old and they have unprotected sex which resulted in her pregnancy. The boyfriend has already established he isn’t ready to be a father. This leaves Candy with the decision
Premium Abortion Pregnancy Fertility
The result for the direct motion for Danny Driver (DD) will be granted‚ but the direct verdict for (FF) will not be granted. The court must determine whether the hitchhiker’s estate had a prima facie case for negligence and could satisfy the burden of production to prove that both DD and FF breached their duty the day of the car accident that lead to the death of the hitchhiker. The two statutes that are relevant to the case are state statute 101 and state statute 102. State statute 101 states
Premium Res ipsa loquitur Common law Prima facie
Mill and Nietzsche have different ideas on how people act towards their actions. Mill focuses on the end purpose of human behaviors to create happiness for a group of people rather than an individual happiness. He defines Utilitarianism as human’s actions that lead to happiness. Human’s desires either give pleasure or prevent pain to create happiness (Arthur & Scalet‚ 2009‚ p. 66). For Mill‚ the consequences of an action matter. As discussed in class‚ we could measure the quantity and quality of
Premium Utilitarianism Ethics Suffering
of people within a territory. It is the sharing of some popular beliefs‚ ascribing a common political identity to its entire people and sharing a common history. In this context the internal outcries for separate statehood cannot be ignored prima facie. Also more and more stifling of these demands will be a call for disaster. These types of internal conflicts have always been a head-ache for governments worldwide and they are still searching for a way-out. India is a nation lauded for ‘Unity in
Premium States and territories of India Sovereign state Andhra Pradesh
Recruitment Pre-recruitment activity: 3 elements: 1. Is there a prima facie case for recruitment? • Is there actually a job to be done or can elements be distributed‚ eliminated or achieved through alternative means‚ e.g. contracting out? • Can the budget handle it? • Do workload predictions justify recruitment? • Does the hiring fit in with the business plan? 2. Job analysis Once a prima facie case has been established‚ job analysis provides the opportunity for assessing
Free Psychometrics Validity
------------------------------------------------- Foss v Harbottle Foss v Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189 is a leading English precedent in corporate law. In any action in which a wrong is alleged to have been done to a company‚ the proper claimant is the company itself. This is known as "the rule in Foss v Harbottle"‚ and the several important exceptions that have been developed are often described as "exceptions to the rule in Foss v Harbottle". Amongst these is the ’derivative action’‚ which allows
Premium Pleading Plaintiff Corporation
Doctrine of Competence-competence The proper allocation of responsibilities between courts and arbitral tribunals for resolving disputes concerning arbitral jurisdiction – disputes about whether the plaintiff’s claim ought to be decided by an arbitral tribunal or a court – has been one of the most complex and controversial question of modern arbitration law. Although there is broad agreement on one general proposition that arbitrators are empowered to rule on their own jurisdiction and then proceed
Premium Arbitration Common law Contract
ACT NO. 2031 THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW I. FORM AND INTERPRETATION Section 1. Form of negotiable instruments. - An instrument to be negotiable must conform to the following requirements: (a) It must be in writing and signed by the maker or drawer; (b) Must contain an unconditional promise or order to pay a sum certain in money; (c) Must be payable on demand‚ or at a fixed or determinable future time; (d) Must be payable to order or to bearer; and (e) Where the instrument
Premium
The rule in Ryland’s v Fletcher was established in the case Rylands v Fletcher [1868]‚ decided by Blackburn J. In effect‚ it is a tort of strict liability “imposed upon a landowner who collects certain things on his land – a duty insurance against harm caused by their escape regardless of the owner’s fault”. The tort under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is described as one of strict liability. This means that liability may be imposed on a party without finding of fault such as negligence. The plaintiff
Premium Tort Tort Complaint
Iacocca & Ford Co. Increase (short-term)/Decrease Rev. (long-term) Increase PR issues In 5. Identify the OBLIGATIONS. State: (a) the _deontological principle (DP)_ used to assess the actions of the DECISION MAKER (e.g.‚ Kant’s ethics‚ prima facie); (b) the standard implicit in this principle (e.g. categorical imperative - Could the action be willed into universal law?); (c) the key obligations of the decision maker for each of the affected parties; (d) the extent to which each obligation
Premium Ethics Morality Immanuel Kant