Business Rules Case Study Essay

Legalities in Management Final

Case Study

Christine Strong

Southern Or University

Business law – case study

The situation study of John and Stacey has so many difficult elements that apparently all the stakeholders included apart from the two mentioned may sue or be sued against. This kind of paper presumes that this may be the scenario in this paper. The characters engaged are Steve and Stacy, a restaurant owner, the master of a townhouse, the owner of the mink where John tripped and eventually resulted in a hip fracture, a blasting contractor, plus the customer who have accidently slice an expensive art work. From John's point of view:

Steve apparently got Stacey to a expensive cafe to impress her. The menu did not quote the prices of the food offered in the restaurant, but John thought it was comparable to the market price of similar eating places in Oregon. When the bill showed up (which by itself was pricey), the cafe had charged an additional fifty % of the cost as set gratuity. Both guests discovered the food to become extremely delightful. He was furious and vulnerable not to pay out the bill. The particular owner apparently insults John. His problems are not really over but. He makes an obvious with an additional guest inside the restaurant to rent a townhouse pertaining to ten thousand dollars which in turn he was unable to comply with as a result of circumstances stated below. This individual tripped against a mink coat accidently left on the ground and fractured his hip. John therefore was unwell because of polluted food provided by the cafe even though it felt good. David could have a legitimate legal help in this respect with regard to willful negligence for the cafe owner. John was also apparently hit by goblet fragments shattered due to the inadvertent mistake of any blasting contractor near to the restaurant. He may again prosecute the person pertaining to injuries induced. These are the difficulties faced by simply John in cases like this study. The simple fact the David had written to everyone involved that he had acted for a company created by him and that the firm had simply no funds will not appear to be an issue of concern in case study. No one has registered a case against him. However it should be known that John's letter to the entire stakeholder's that he previously formed a small company and that it had simply a miniscule balance will not be a necessary safeguard for personal liability in case such an issue happens. Unless he had specifically stated that his credit card payment was made on his company's account, he would be personally held liable in a legal dispute (The Spitz Law Firm). The only concern that could face John is if Stacey commun John because of not keeping the session fixed for day at the townhouse. Coming from Stacey's point of view:

Stacey apparently was amazed at John's prosperity. She experienced dinner with John which is why he paid out by credit card. He made an invitation to spend a day inside the townhouse which she recognized. But because of the accident, David could not maintain his promise. She was upset at this time and left him. Moreover, she acquired rented a coat for your day for starters thousand dollars. Since the meeting would not come about, she demanded a repayment of the rent she acquired paid for the dress. The renter refused the refund. The restaurant owner' point of view:

The owner had evidently received repayment for the foodstuff and services provided. His restaurant had not printed the values of the things available on the menu. Yet this is not obviously illegal based on the Oregon Menu Labeling Work. It seems that what the law states requires just nutrient and calorie information and that also for a chain of 20 or more eating places (Oregon Government). But his building was damaged because of the negligence of the blasting contractor and could file suit for damage. The great time also triggered a guest shredding a valuable portrait hung around the wall. Here again the proprietor could sue the person accountable. The restaurant owner likewise feels that serving infected or low quality raw material was a business tactic. This can be...

References: Crawford, Tad. Legal guide intended for the aesthetic artist. Allworth Press, 2010. 107. Print out.

Kaplan,. Supreme torts - core principles and essential questions. 2009. Print.

Kellher, T. M. & Walters, G. T. (2009). Good sense – construction law, Ruben Wiley & Sons

Legal Information Commence,. " Standard Commercial Code. ". Cornell University Regulation School, n. d. Net. 28 February 2012..

Miller, Roger LeRoy, and Gaylord Jentz. Business legislation today. Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.

Oregon Government,. " When does the Menu Labeling Act take effect?. " For eating places. Oregon Point out, 2010. Internet. 28 Feb 2012.

The Spitz Law Firm,. " Signing deals on behalf of your enterprise. ". N. p., 2011. Web. twenty-eight Feb 2012..

Twomey, David P, and Marianne Changing mood Jennings. Business law as well as the legal environment. Cengage Learning, 2011. 285. Print.

US Landlord. com,. " Section 55. " Oregon Landlord Tenant Rules. N. l., n. g. Web. twenty nine Feb 2012.



Case Stud Powell Logistics Essay

Related

Category

News