0

Which side of this debate do you support? Is it possible to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of both groups on this issue? In the case of Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001) I

Which side of this debate do you support?

Is it possible to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of both groups on this issue?

In the case of Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001) I

would have to support Universal Studios Inc. because of the simple fact that if they allow

purchaser of the movies, music and books in digital form to make copies of their product.

Then the purchasers can use the copies for whatever they want and then Universal Studios Inc.

will lose money due to the copies for their product. I think that Eric Corley infringed on the

Copyright Act and Patent infringement right of Universal studios, not to mention Eric Corley

counterfeited goods by coping the DVDs and posted on a website6 .Eric Corey did not get the

proper licensing to post the product on his website so therefore he is in the wrong by doing so.

No, I do not think a there can be balance between these two groups, because if Universal

Studios gives in to Eric Corley they will lose their rights and money. Eric Corley needed to go

through the proper channel to obtain licensing to be able to put Universal Studios product on

their website.

0

Agency Law and its Significance If you run a successful paper mill and send out your three best personnel to secure new wood pulp sources using due diligence and skill. Applying the agency principles outlined in this

Agency Law and its Significance

If you run a successful paper mill and send out your three best personnel to secure new wood

pulp sources using due diligence and skill. Applying the agency principles outlined in this

chapter, answer the following questions.

Delilah, does not return with wood pulp, but brings back three contracts. Acting within the scope

of her authority, she contracted with Evon, who knew your identity at the time; Felipe, who

knew that Delilah was acting on behalf of someone but not whom; and Giorgio, who did not

know that Delilah was acting on anyone’s behalf. For which contracts, if any, are you liable?

For which contracts, if any, is Delilah liable? Explain. a third person has no knowledge about

the fact that the agent is acting for a principal, then both the agency and the principal is known

as undisclosed ones. The agent of an undisclosed principal can be held liable, on the contract as

the real obligor as she contracted in that capacity. Similarly, an undisclosed principal can also be

held liable, so he must also assume its burdens. The liability of an undisclosed principal and the

agent is an alternative liability. It means that the third party can only make either the principal or

the agent liable and not both of them together. The contract with Giorgio is an undisclosed one

can you and Delilah are both liable. The situation is the same with Felipe although the agency

was known. He can hold either the agent or the principal liable for the contract. However, Evon

knew that Delilah was your agent and that you were the principal. Therefore’ you are liable but

Delilah is not.

0

You are an employee at a nice paper mill and want to impress the boss by burning the midnight oil (but not too close to the wood pulp). For four consecutive weeks, you work forty-five, forty-two,

You are an employee at a nice paper mill and want to impress the boss by burning the midnight oil

(but not too close to the wood pulp). For four consecutive weeks, you work forty-five, forty-two,

thirty-nine, and thirty-one hours. If you were a nonexempt employee covered by the Fair Labor

Standards Act, how many hours of overtime pay, if any, would you be entitled to? What would be the

rate?

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, I would be entitled to a Federal Minimum wage of $ 7.25

per hour and for any overtime, I should receive 1.5 times my regular pay over my standard 40 hours a

week. I worked forty- five hours the first week, in which my pay should be 40 hours times $7.25. 5 hours

times $10.88 because I worked five overtime hours. Therefore, for the first week I would have made

$290.00 for regular time and $55.40 for overtime pay. In the second week of work, I would get 40 hours

times $7.25 and 2 hours times $10.88because I worked 2 hours overtime. So I would of made $290.00

for regular pay and $21.76 in overtime pay .In the third week of work, I worked 39 hours so I would

only make my regular hourly wage of $7.25 times 39 hours. Therefore, for the third week I would make

$282.75. ON THE Last week of work, I worked 31 hours and I would not get any overtime hour so my pay

would be 39 times $7.25. I would of made 224.75for my last week of work.

0

INDIVIDUAL 2 Recognize the elements of a negotiable instrument, as well as the elements of rules affecting transferability and liability.

INDIVIDUAL 2

Recognize the elements of a negotiable instrument, as well as the elements of rules

affecting transferability and liability.

Now suppose that you go to your bank and write a check on your account payable to cash

for $500. The teller gives you the cash without asking you to indorse the check. After you leave,

the teller slips the check into his pocket. Later, the teller delivers it (without an endorsement) to

his friend Carol in payment for a gambling debt. Carol takes your check to her bank, indorses it,

and deposits the money.

Discuss whether Carol is a holder in due course.

Yes, Carol can be a holder in due course because, the requirements if the holder in

due course are as follows “1. For value 2. In good faith 3. Without notice that is overdue,

that it has been dis honored by the person claiming it. In addition, that it was a unauthorized

signature.”(2011, Business law text & exercises) Even though she is not the person who took

the check from the bank she endorsed the check knowing that it was not hers to cash. It does

HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

not matter that the cashier took the check at this point. Carlo is the one who is liable for making

things right.

0

Sam works as a driver for Toxic Games Warehouse, a wholesale distributor and online retailer of video games and accessories.

Sam works as a driver for Toxic Games Warehouse, a wholesale distributor and online retailer

of video games and accessories. Over a ten-year period, Sam repeatedly applies for and is denied

a promotion to the position of dispatcher. Sam meets the requirements for the job, which are a

year’s driving experience and a specific license.

After one interview, Sam overhears the interviewer tell a co-worker that Sam, who is white, did

not get the job because whites are lazy. Is this employment discrimination? Explain.

Yes, this is a form of employment discrimination, which “Title VII of the civil rights act

of 1964 which prohibits the discrimination against employees and other workers on the basis

of race, color .national origin, religion, and gender at a stage of employment” Retrieved from

(Hollowell & Miller, 2012, p. 368). A employer can not hire someone based on the fact that they

think whites are lazy. The only reason they could not hire a person is that they are over or under

qualified for the job. Therefore Sam can sue this company for discrimination due to not getting

this job under the Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964.

0

Agency Law and its Significance Normally the employer is responsible for the negligent acts of the employee under Respondeat Superior,

Agency Law and its Significance

Normally the employer is responsible for the negligent acts of the employee under

Respondeat Superior, a legal doctrine, most commonly used in tort, that holds an employer or

principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur

within the scope of the employment or agency. The mill is liable if he was acting within the

scope of his employment. Respondeat superior is a doctrine of enterprise liability that attempts to

link risks to benefits and hold accountable for risk-creating activities the enterprise that stands to

benefit from those activities. The doctrine imposes on one party vicarious liability without fault –

for the torts of another party. The reach of the doctrine depends on two concepts: “servant” status

and “scope of employment.” Respondeat superior applies only if a truck driver commits a tort

while acting within “the scope of employment is also clear. Domain of respondeat superior has

been torts of negligence, which cause bodily harm, and within that core, the typical case involves

an employee who is careless while on the job and whether an employee whose job necessitates

traveling from place to place is within the scope of employment when so traveling.