BRIEF CASE Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

BRIEF CASE - Coursework Example Vernon’s motion for summary judgment. The City was not supposed to grant preferential treatment to employees under USERA. The retaliation and negative comments allegations forwarded by Crews did not constitute materially adverse claims. The issue in this case is determining whether the district court was correct in ruling the summary judgment in favor of the City of Mt. Vernon. The City and its agents allegedly rescinded Crews’s work scheduling policy, denied Crews opportunities for personal development, made negative comments towards him and retaliated against him. The police Department denied Crews his benefits of employment, an action that is against 38 U.S.C Section 4311(a); the benefit of employment defined in this section are provided to both military and non-military employees. The department has fixed Crews’s days off on Mondays and Tuesdays, limiting him the opportunities for bidding his preferred days of the week. Crews alleges that the defendants retaliated by denying to permit his desire to attend FTO classes after he was promoted to corporal position; this action denied Crews opportunities for his career

Business and Law - short story Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Business and Law - short story - Case Study Example Apart from this she also had to undergo mental stress as she had lost her prestige. Sarah suffered physical injuries and mental agony because she got a t-shirt from a sale conducted by Cameron at her hotel. Just because she wore the t-shirt which had toxic material, Sarah suffered rashes all over her body and she was admitted to the hospital. She had to spend almost 6 weeks at the hospital. Finally when she was better the rashes left scars all over her body due to which she could not negotiate a movie deal with a major movie studio. The manufacturer has to use reasonable skill and care in the circumstances (ie. if the possible injury is very serious then the manufacturer will have a heavier duty, if the chance of injury is remote, the duty will be greater than if the chance of injury has a greater probability). When the facts indicate some negligence (eg. a snail in a bottle), the consumer does not have to prove how the manufacturer was negligent. The manufacturer has to prove that they did meet the standard of care. Based on the above Sarah has every right to take action against Cameron. She can sue Cameron in the court of law. Sarah's physical injuries caused by wearing the t-shirt resulted in her cancellation of a major movie contract. This was only because of the negligence on the part of Cameron who sold the t-shirt. Sarah also has the right to claim for emotional distress. The law says that if emotional distress causes physical injury in this case (Sarah's skin rashes) then the claimant who suffered emotional distress can make a claim. 3. Issues of the case: The gasfitter knowingly did damage to the pipeline of the hotel. Action: Sam can take legal action against the gasfitter. He can sue the gasfitter in the court of law and can also claim damages for negligence caused by him. Sam due to the negligence of the gasfitter had lost around $80,000 because it took 8 days to start the business after the gasfitter had tampered with his gasoline. 5. Sam the hotel owner had filed a claim for damages with her insurance company. In this case the insurance company has every right to deny her claim because it is evident that Sam has been inviting trouble from the whale rights activists 'Dignity for Whales'. She went against the law by selling whale meat. Sam had renewed the insurance policy and there was a contract with him and the insurance company. The insurance company cannot deny the claim. But since Sam had invited the damages she has no right to claim. With regard to the second attack, from the problem it is not clear as to why his hotel was attacked for the second time. Probably if she had carried on to serve whale meat then she has no right to claim. But if Sam had not continued serving whale meat then he has a right to claim from the insurance company. 6. Issues of the case: Cameron suffered loss of her stock due to fire. She had lost 95% of her stock but the insurance company paid her 100%. The issue is that whether Cameron can keep the sale