Why choose us?

We understand the dilemma that you are currently in of whether or not to place your trust on us. Allow us to show you how we can offer you the best and cheap essay writing service and essay review service.

Contract law in America

This assignment is worth 250 points!! Please follow all instructions listed within assignment. The course
readings for weeks 1~5 within the course must be used. See above for log-in information.

Assignment 2: Legal Issues Case Study Part II

Read the scenario and the questions that follow. Identify the legal issue(s) and apply legal concepts and
possible arguments for each question. Prepare a solution for each question using laws, cases, examples
and/or other relevant materials. At the end of the paper, identify potential ethical issues and propose a
solution for each issue. Support your answers with information from the textbook and at least two outside
scholarly sources. By Tuesday, May 10, 2016, prepare a 7 to 9-page paper that identifies the legal issues
and potential solutions and answers all questions presented, supported by relevant legal authority.
Properly cite all sources using APA forma

Legal Issues Case Study Part II


Legal Issues Case Study Part II

Steps to be followed in the Adminstrative Processes

There are laws that may not be directly found in the constitution but have the same effect
as any other law of the land. Most of these are rules and regulations produced by federal agencies
ensure that all laws formulated are in tandem with constitution. Several important steps take
effect when any government administrative agency proposes new rules. The first step involves
enacting of a given legislation. During this process, specific issues being addressed are
incorporated. The second step involves provision of a notice of proposed rulemaking. This stage
will involve input from public members and another stakeholder who will be directly or
indirectly affected by the new changes. Any new data or review acquired through the new
process is released to the public. The third step involves publishing the new rule and regulation
in the federal registry (McKendrick, 2014). The language used should be easier for all parties to
A justification and analysis on why the law is being implemented is also taken into
consideration and printed together with the law. The response of members of public is also
included in the whole process. Once the proposed rule or regulation has been published, a public

comment period begins for approximately 30 to 180 days (McKendrick, 2014). All views
provided by the members of the public are given a listening ear. In normal circumstances, the
proposed rule becomes the final rule with very slight modifications. The agency may publish a
second draft containing the proposed changes or modifications that have been added by different
members of the public. The rules and regulations are then codified in the agencies law. A judicial
review process follows especially when there are parties who feel that all obligations required in
the rule have not been fulfilled. The rule does not immediately become effective. A grace period
is allowed to ensure that the public complies with the new regulations.
Some rules may even take years before they fully become functional (McKendrick,
2014). In the above case, the law is already functional and thus Roc should ensure they adhere to
the government new policy. Food safety training is an important component of any organization
or business under this sector. Ethically, it would be wrong for the new officers who previously
worked with FDA to use back door means that may imply that the company has met all
requirements since this would not effectively mean that its employees received training on issues
related to food training. Therefore, it is important for Roc to make important strides related to
training its employees on issues relating to food training.

Lawsuit Legal issues between McWilliams and Hal Coker
McWilliams is more likely to win the case. All people who enter the restaurant enter
through their own volition. The restaurant does not in any way have any obligation under law to
describe whether the foods being provided are healthy or unhealthy. For any restaurant to be
operating under the current law, it must have been granted permission relating to the type of
service being offered. In other words, McWilliams was provided with a license after the
regulatory board that checks foods being produced in different food stores found it to be under

the accepted principles. Hal Coker could have won the case if either the food that was being
consumed was found to cause food poisoning or if McWilliams was forcefully forcing people to
eat their food. Since both of factors do not exist, McWilliams has legitimate reasons to continue
operating (McKendrick, 2014). Ethically, it may be wrong for McWilliams to be operating while
providing people with foods that are not necessarily healthy for a certain amount of money. It
would be wrong to be providing a certain amount of money for a service that is not to the
required standards.

Lawsuit legal issues between McWilliams and Allison children
An act of commission and omission occurred in McWilliams. The act itself resulted in
the loss of life or murder. The main question that will be addressed in the above case will be
whether there could was something that could have been done to avert the disaster that led to
injuries to Mrs. Allison and her two daughters. McWilliams are more likely to lose the case in
two counts. First, they never provided assistance to Mrs. Allison despite numerous requests
concerning the behavior of Mr. Allison. Specifically, the manager was asked to provide
assistance and stop Mr. Allison. The Manager claimed that their internal laws did not allow them
to intervene in family issues. By dissociating themselves from a criminal act that happened in
their setting, they would be charged with an act of omission. This is because they had been
provided with relevant information concerning the actions of Mr. Allison. Secondly, the crime
took place in their settings. McWilliams is responsible for all actions that occur in the setting. If
they had taken necessary measures or if the crime was accidental the case would have been quite
different. The third aspect involves rules and regulations being followed by the company. The
constitution supersedes any other laws present and will always come first in all cases

(McKendrick, 2014). In the above case, the company failed to adhere to the rules set by the
Constitution and more specifically laws that related to the right to live. By observing their laws
instead of those that govern the land, they were gravely violating it. Ethically, the actions of the
manager were not ethical since life was lost at the expense of companies rules and instructions.

Logos and Mascots

The McWilliams Logo and Mascot are considered to be part of intellectual property. All
items classified under intellectual property are copyrighted or patented. This would effectively
mean that no other company is supposed in any way to copy the product used by another
company. Therefore, it would be true to state that logos act in a similar way to a patent. A patent
can only identify with one party. Some mascots may be considered to represent the face of a
company. Similarly, it represents one organization or company. In the United States, Logos and
other forms of mascots are protected by laws governing intellectual property (Bently & Sherman,
2014). Outside the United States, different laws may be applied depending on their constitutions.
There are different laws that regulate intellectual properties at the international level.
McWilliams has a case against McDonalds since it has utilized its logos in their business. In the
business world, logos define different business. McDonald’s logo indicates that in one way or
another they are affiliated with McWilliams. Therefore, it is more likely for loyal customers who
go to McWilliams to end up in McDonalds. Thus, the logos can act to profit McDonalds at the
expense of Mc Williams. The same logo is being used by McDonalds to advertise without
permission from the required parties and would, therefore, be in violation of the intellectual
property acts because no permission was granted by McWilliams.

What is the status of the employment contract between Eric and Bean & Counter?
The contract that existed between the two parties had three key components. The first
agreement was that Eric could not be terminated for the first twelve months in the company
unless it was proved that there were illegal actions from Eric parts. The second part of the
contract addressed methods that were used to solve any form of conflict between the parties. The
agreed method was the use of mediating with the mediator coming from the company. The last
part restricted Eric from working for any individuals across a hundred yards. Eric observed all of
the above factors. However, the company violated all terms of the agreement after a row with
Eric father that led to the termination of the contract with Eric. As a result, Eric was fired before
the first twelve months that they had agreed on. Additionally, mediation was never used to
address all issues relating to the company (Friedman, 2011). Therefore, all the terms of the
contract became null and void even before Eric began working for the company. Ethically, it is
wrong to use another company’s image to earn more money or income without seeking any form
of permission from them. It becomes worse if the company using the logo is a rival in the same
market since it creates a different image to people who go to the above companies.

Enforcing Non-compete Provision

The non- compete provisions are not enforceable in the above case. Eric was fired from
the company even before any formal work had begun. Therefore, Eric never in any way obtained
information on how the company is run or other important methods that the company has used
since time immemorial to gain competitive advantage. Eric would not be in violation of any of
requirement that required that the next job be more than a hundred yards away. If Eric were fired
from the company in a more legal manner, it would have been legal to obtain another job near a

competitor (McKendrick, 2014). However, since the company violated the terms of the
agreement, then there was no contract between the two parties. Ethically, it would be wrong for
the non-compete principle to be implemented knowing quite well that that company was the one
at fault in dismissing Eric from the company without any legitimate claim.
Agreement between Bean & Counter and Roc?

There is no agreement between Roc and Bean & Counter due to some principal issues
that Eric was going to be employed by the company. When signing any form of agreement, the
parties present are supposed to act in good faith and inform different parties of all the clauses.
The main part that Bean and Coulter never informed Roc was that Eric already had an agreement
with the other party. It, therefore, meant that there was no need to discuss terms that related to
Eric. Instead, they could have opted to discuss other issues that would have brought the two
businesses together (McKendrick, 2014). The main agreement was that Eric was to be hired by
the company before any contract took effect. Since the company violated their agreement and
never informed parties of all the required conditions and steps taken about Eric’s employment, it
became impossible for the contract to remain valid.
Contracts Formation

Scott has a contract with McWilliams. Since Scot was negotiating a contract for the
company, it is accurate to state that Scot was working on behalf of the company. If the contract
had been based on personal issues, then the case would have been different, and the company
would have never been liable. Any valid contract has three important elements. The first element
is the offer that is made to two different groups (Friedman, 2011). An invitation to treat is first
offered before an offer is made. In this case, the invitation to treat revolved around the likelihood
that certain Turner would agree to sell the land that had been earmarked for demolition

(McKendrick, 2014). Scout makes an irresistible offer to Turner. The offer involves the sale of a
piece of land for a certain amount of money. The second element of any contract is acceptance.
Once the above parties agree in principle on the offer made they are deemed to have accepted the
terms of the contract, and therefore the contract becomes valid. The last aspect is a consideration
which involved a certain amount of money (Friedman, 2011). In this case, it had been equated as
$400,000. If all the above elements are fulfilled, then a contract is deemed to have met all the
required terms. Some defects are noted in the above agreement. The first is the consideration
amount that is supposed to be signed by two parties (Friedman, 2011). The amount has been
quoted wrongly. Though Scott notes the mistake, no attempt is made to correct the above
mistake. The second element that misses is the way the invitation to treat is offered. Scout
attempts to identify the illness that an individual is suffering before issuing the contract



Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2014). Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, USA.
Friedman, L. M. (2011). Contract law in America: a social and economic case study. Quid Pro
McKendrick, E. (2014). Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).

All Rights Reserved, scholarpapers.com
Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products.