Law and Legal Issues, Article Writing Example

Various issues can be identified in the two cases that can be used to understand better the kinds of torts that have been applied throughout the semester. Therefore, beginning with the case of Johny and his parents, the issues spotted include; From the omission of the promise that the parents gave to johnny, which meant that they had committed a tort. However, they did promise johnny out of extreme happiness that they had and not because they expected that he does anything for them in return for the favor that they have promised. Also, the decision of johnny to go and inform his friends about the mustang before it was acquired was purely his, which means that whether the parents buy the mustang or not, johnny’s feelings towards showing his friends the mustang purely depended on him.

Therefore, from this relationship, the following questions can be asked, who was to be held responsible for johnny’s feelings apart from himself? The parents acted naturally towards their son, and therefore, if he takes them to court to make them look bad, will the ball bounce back to johnny based on the fact that the judge might rule in favor of the parents? It is also logical to say that if johnny is required to give a fine in the court of law, will the parents feel the effect because they are responsible for him? Because johnny based his actions on the feelings about his friends in regards to him owning the mustang and proving to them that his words were true and those of his parents, in case things turned out the other way and Johnny decides to take his parents to court, who between the two should be considered as the one practicing injustice since both of them can be seen to commit a tort?

Also, because johnny also had a problem with not the car to be bought as the school that he was going to get to because of his school performance, the following evaluating questions can be identified that will help one to be able to understand the issues in this case better; should johnny’s anger existing from the fact that he cannot be able to go to Steinberg be directed to the parents or johnny himself because it was his commitments that led him to the kind of school that he deserves.

From the case of the one with the border wall, Randy Trenton was the potential tort, and therefore, by omitting the funds to help Tim build the wall, Tim would have to get to his financial plans to get the work to be done. Under this context, we also see that after the job was to be done, it was not sure that Tim was to be given the position of leadership that Randy held because the only thing that Randy was to give him was his support and not the surety of the position of leadership. From this explanation, we can formulate several questions that will help us easily spot the issues in this case; Was it wrong for Randy to refuse to get funds for Tim, yet he wanted to provide the helping bridge for him to lead after he had retired? Between Randy and Tim, who of the two can be considered the greedy one because they have a mutual wish to see their goals come true. Between the tort committed by Randy and the fact that Tim decided to enter into a deal with his employer with a clear mind knowing that he does not have enough equipment to handle the project, which one between can be considered wrong before the court of law. In the case that Randy decides to sue Tim for not constructing the wall despite refusing to help him with the project, can the judge rule according to his favor bearing the fact that he had entered into an oral contract with Tim before he decided to begin the job? Will Tim be right to counterattack Randy with the point that he had no other choice but to breach the contract because of lack of funds and lack of the necessary tools to build the wall that he could not avoid?

Also, considering that the relationship between Tim and Donald was set as a contract of supply within the first three months and Donald failed him, we can identify the issue that Donald decided to breach the contract intentionally.  Furthermore, Donald promising Tim that he will be able to deliver the job within the agreed time while knowing very well that he was not going to abide by the rules of that contract means that there existed no work ethics between the two and Tim’s side had more power in case he decided to sue Donald in the court of law for his misconduct. Furthermore, considering Donald finally decides to change the terms of the contract and preferring to pay Tim instead of lending him the machine of building the wall means that it will be Tim’s responsibility to go back and inform Randy on the issue so that it does not seem intentional for both parties.

Therefore, from this scenario, the following questions can be identified; Was Tim wrong when he decided that he will not look for another solution where he realized Donald had not delivered the T1400 machine within the first three months of the contract that they had initially? Is it Donald’s mistake not to tell Tim straight away that he will not give him the machine? Between Randy and Donald, who of them committed tort that would be able to give Tim compensation before the court of law? If any of these cases could lead Tim to the wrong side of the court of law, what measures or speculations would he have employed that could have depicted the true standing? Finally, because all the T1400 were being used in a known cause in the country at that time, does that mean that Tim had not committed any mistake since he had no otherwise but to wait for the projects to end? Issue: Is it reasonable for Jimmy to rely on his parents’ promise to buy him a mustang?

Rule: the promissory rule becomes applicable in the following two circumstances: 1 there must be a reasonable expectation of reliance. 2 the promise reasonably relies on the given promise for whatever purposes. 3. When the promissory rule comes down to settle at a fair point. i.e., when it takes validation of fairness within the process.

Application: There can be a reasonable argument that a child should rely on a given promise by this parent or even guardian. Given that the promise was made when there was no need to act with impulse, then it is good that we argue or confide in the fact that this kid will never make a promise of such intensity lightly. From different laws and policies, the kid is very right to argue that courts and other law enforcement authorities should be sensitive to their needs and preferences. Therefore, such an action would be interpreted based on the fact that kids’ reliance on their parents’ trust should be safeguarded with all the best moral interest at heart.

On the other hand, Johnny’s parents would hold on to the sentiment or belief that an impromptu promise made by the parents to the son was a promise that was worth being kept between them rather than announce it to the whole world. His parents would also argue into a decisive point of fast things first, where Johnny’s admission to Steinberg high school was to be given a priority, then the idea of the bicycle could come later.

Conclusion: the most likely conclusion that the court is likely to give is that Johnny was very unreasonable by relying on the promises of his parents. Though there are some traits of active reasoning by relying on the parent’s promise, there was no illegitimate action that could ask some questions about the reasonableness of the daughter, to add more weight to the argument, the father’s promise was made to ensure that the daughter provided a valuable exchange to his dad, which we can opt is passing of exams which would later benefit him.

Issue: Is it reasonable for Jimmy to rely on his parents’ promise to buy him a mustang?

Rule: the promissory rule becomes applicable in the following two circumstances: 1 there must be a reasonable expectation of reliance. 2 the promise reasonably relies on the given promise for whatever purposes. 3. When the promissory rule comes down to settle at a fair point. i.e., when it takes validation of fairness within the process.

Application: There can be a reasonable argument that a child should rely on a given promise by this parent or even guardian. Given that the promise was made when there was no need to act with impulse, then it is good that we argue or confide in the fact that this kid will never make a promise of such intensity lightly. From different laws and policies, the kid is very right to argue that courts and other law enforcement authorities should be sensitive to their needs and preferences. Therefore, such an action would be interpreted based on the fact that kids’ reliance on their parents’ trust should be safeguarded with all the best moral interest at heart.

On the other hand, Johnny’s parents would hold on to the sentiment or belief that an impromptu promise made by the parents to the son was a promise that was worth being kept between them rather than announce it to the whole world. His parents would also argue into a decisive point of fast things first, where Johnny’s admission to Steinberg high school was to be given a priority, then the idea of the bicycle could come later.

Conclusion: the most likely conclusion that the court is likely to give is that Johnny was very unreasonable by relying on the promises of his parents. Though there are some traits of active reasoning by relying on the parent’s promise, there was no illegitimate action that could ask some questions about the reasonableness of the daughter, to add more weight to the argument, the father’s promise was made to ensure that the daughter provided a valuable exchange to his dad, which we can opt is passing of exams which would later benefit him.

Legal Issues

A tort is an act or omission that harms the other party causing them to commit a civil wrong. About the case of the one with the border wall case, Randy Trenton’s relation to Tim ends up leading to a causation effect that can be viewed from different angles. Randy Trenton had the duty of supporting Tim since he was the head of the company, and since he wanted to retire with a good record in his books, it, therefore, was his duty to support him because that is the only way that he would have ensured the building of the wall would have been done at ease.  Since it was Tim’s job to conduct special operations in the company, it was his duty to ensure that all the funds are duly collected together with the availability of all the tools before attempting to do the project.

To prove the point of causation effect from a potential tort, it is clear that Randy, who is the head of the company, decided not to help Tim, yet he was aware that for the wall to be built, necessary funds were to be directed into the project. Therefore, the omission of this help caused Tim to have more conflicts with other third parties such as Donald. Therefore, it was the effect of these conflicts that led to the slowdown of the building process of the company’s wall. The causation effect can be identified in the place that Tin worries about his succession plan because he could not reach the standards of the project in time. This shows that even though Randy was the one that offered the job of building the wall to Tim, of which he was to offer him support for succession after the job, it became so hard for this dream to become true because he had intentionally neglected to help him. Probably he was aware that all the T1400 machines were underuse during that moment. Therefore he led to the causation effect that Tim would never be able to inherit or succeed the chair of the head of the organization after Randy had retired from that post.

Another issue that occurred that led to causing a material breach out of a contract includes the relationship that occurred between Tim and Donald. When Tim was offered the chance to succeed after Randy the moment he retires, he went further to look for Donald, who to help him with the T1400 machine that would have helped him build the wall. Therefore, the contract that he had entered was that he decided to build the wall for Randy to help him create a good reputation as he is leaving the office, whereby in return was to ensure that he supports Tim to succeed after him. The material breach can be identified in the areas such as Donald refusing to help Tim with the material necessary for the construction of the wall, yet he knew that he was the only one able to help at that time. From the analysis of this situation, it was hard for anyone to assume that Randy did not know how the situation was. Therefore, understanding that Randy was aware that all the T1400 machines were underused in the greater project in the country, he wanted to cause a material breach by exerting pressure on Tim to go and find that machine to meet the deadlines of the contract that they have. On the other hand, Donald breaks the rules of the contract that they had between him and Tim in the sense that he did not want to release the materials to Tim.

Another legal issue that can be talked about in this article includes the worker classification issues that originate from the vicarious liability in the omission of something that causes harm to the other party. Vicarious liability refers to the scenarios such as that one in which the employer is the one that experiences the consequences of the mistakes of the employee. We can see about this kind of legal issue. In the end, Randy doesn’t manage to get his wish of building a wall before he retires. The ineffectiveness of Tim had caused this scenario to find the right tools to handle the project of building the wall around the organization.  He, therefore, faces the vicarious liability issue because not even Donald could help him overcome the problem. Finally, under this issue, we can see that it is not the problem of the employee that the project was not able to be completed because there were issues that made them not complete the program. Among the strong issues that faced the organization that they could not achieve their dreams include the lack of funds and the necessary materials to build the wall.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the largest enemy of the Congress’ apartheid law. The adoption came due to advancement in social integration in the south and put an end to ethnic isolation and alienation. In either event, most insurance companies protected discrimination, not on color but on different qualities, such as sex, publicity and faith. Perhaps Title VII was the title (segment) of this act with the best general result.

Title VII disclaims the apartheid of a private boss of at least fifteen employees in an industry influential by color, shading, religion, sex and the media. As a pragmatic issue involving every company involving at least 15 delegates. The accomplishment of Title VII resulted in applying the company rule to various supervisors and various types of separation. In 1972 Title VII was changed to include most bosses of the state. Many states have enacted resolutions after Title VII, which included administrators per fewer employees. Therefore, Senate enacted comparable rules that prevented businesses’ segregation grounded on factors such as periods combined with disability.

Initially, Title VII was meant to deal with racial discrimination and did not refer to sex distinction when first presented. The disallowance against sex-based apartheid was added without a second to save competitors in the bill that tried to crush it.

Divergent Therapy

In the custom rule, supervisors were allowed to handle people unexpectedly before Title VII. They may reject to bring in women for particular roles and, even worse, refuse to recruit ladies. Progress will be made for a man against a lady, regardless of whether they concede that it deserves further advancement. They may fire a lady and take her away with a man only for money.

Title VII rejects all these various sex-dependent treatments. The solitary exception is where sex is “a genuine word connected ability” (BFOQ). The BFOQ security has been rigorously deciphered. It cannot be based on the customer’s inclination or the generalization of one sex in particular courses. Ordinarily, a BFOQ would only be allowed if all people of one sex are very unequipped to play a focal enterprise (i.e., nobody but men will contribute sperm) or precision.

Called “defensive legislation,” enacted by several states to deny women (apparently to their benefit) such dangerous or demanding jobs, has been invalidated in Title VII. By comparing sex with another trademark, bosses cannot avoid the prevention of divergent care (sex in addition to segregation). A good illustration of this scenario is when the courts in the united states were against the hiring of people with small kids; here, the biggest issue or dilemma was putting a hard task for the parents to show proof of the statement that the given child in the play belongs to them. As a result of this, when promotions were being awarded, it was very hard for someone to know if it was duly gotten or if it was due to sexual advancements. The court, in turn, went ahead and developed very strict rules that called for the order of proof between employee and employer that would help judges and juries have an answer to this question.

As American International Group (AIG) autonomous chiefs accumulated to determine the destiny of Chairman Maurice R. “Hank” Greenberg, a few had a strange inquiry: Should they convey their legal counselors along? Of note, the chiefs’ very own lawyers were not conceded into the gathering, just insight recruited by the organization in general. However, the AIG chiefs’ desire for singular exhortation during a touchy judgment addresses another flood of worry about lawful obligation in corporate meeting rooms: an expanded inclination among chiefs that they should consider their prosperity and liabilities.

While chiefs conceivably ought to be found answerable for any mistakes made under their supervision, there is a high lawful bar for demonstrating singular duty. To legitimize themselves effectively, chiefs can demonstrate that their activities were “business judgment” taken in great inner voice and not carelessly. By the by, a few chiefs have been hurrying to their lawyers for counsel after previous Enron and WorldCom chiefs vowed to burn through millions to resolve investor suits independently. Such expenses are remarkable since business sanctions likewise contain conditions that expect the firm to take responsibility for rulings against chiefs, and chiefs are additionally covered by protection. By and by, the WorldCom and Enron claims were a reminder in meeting rooms around the country that the times of the elastic stepping, old-kid network directorate were no more. The present sheets feel the warmth and, not at all like previously, they have begun to adjust.

Verifiably, the corporate judgment law, as perceived by state and government courts, expected that overseers of organizations making decisions for clients were correct on the off chance that they acted in great heart, in an informed premise, in an unengaged way, with appropriate perseverance, and without watchfulness or waste. On the off chance that these conditions were satisfied, chiefs’ trustee obligations were refined. To beat this presumption, challengers were constrained to set up that a chief had acted in a profoundly careless manner or had an irreconcilable situation, even though chiefs may overcome the last case by setting up that they had advised the leading group of their advantage and that their activities had served the wellbeing of the investors. Verifiably, the corporate judgment law, as perceived by state and government courts, accepted that overseers of organizations making decisions for clients were correct if they carried on in great still, small voice, on an informed premise, in an unbiased way, with legitimate persistence, and without attentiveness or waste. If these conditions were satisfied, chiefs’ guardian obligations were refined. To determine this doubt, challengers were needed to demonstrate that a chief had carried on in a criminally bumbling manner or had an irreconcilable circumstance; however, chiefs could moderate the above charge by exhibiting that they had told the leading group of their premium and that their direct had addressed the wellbeing of the investors.

The three most recent Delaware Court decisions, the two of them distributed by Vice Chancellor Laster, show the pertinence and impact of the execution of the audit standard on the presentation of post-conditional investor procedures. The assessment states that the full decency examination of the assent endorsement of a greater part investor press out consolidation by the board should be considered by the court, in re Rural Metro Corp. Investors Litigation, the Court’s post-preliminary choice stretches out a fortified oversight to have the monetary specialist of the organization liable for supporting and advancing excused and already settling trustee duty infringement. At the cost of other benefit-making bargains, The Court has added the improved investigation necessity for allowing demands for synopsis judgment to the directors safeguarding against blended money and offer focus with their adversary. The gatherings challenged in every one of Orchard, Rural Metro and Chen the norm of investigation to be applied, and for each situation, a choice by the Court of this procedure has a dispositive effect. As Delaware Legislation expects to give corporate leaders greater security and clearness, the survey standard endures and keeps on having a significant, however, for the most part, overlooked impact.