In the court case of Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 was used to determine if an employee wrongfully received funds from a third party after receiving funds from the National Elevator Industry Health Benefits plan. In the court case, the petitioner Robert Montanile was driving when he was struck by a drunk driver resulting in Mr. Montanile be severely injured. The health benefit plan paid upwards in of $121,000 in medical expenses for Mr. Montanile. In order to receive such funds, Mr. Montanile was required to sign a reimbursement agreement reaffirming his obligation to reimburse the plan from any recovery he obtained "as a result of any legal action or settlement or otherwise. After exiting the hospital Mr. Monanile sought legal action against the drunk
The second trial I attended was a personal injury civil jury trial with Judge Carrier. This was a rather interesting case of Jennifer Wolfe VS D & W LLC. Within this case, Jennifer Wolfe attended a bachelorette party eight years ago with her now sister-in-law, who was the maid of honor. The story started out with everyone meeting at a house and the maid of honor was mad that the designated person to bring alcohol, forgot to bring the alcohol. The alcohol drank at this house was whatever was there, which was a few beers and a box of wine.
Commentaries 1. Area 432.010 peruses in part:No activity might be conveyed to charge ․ any individual ․ upon any agreement made for the offer of grounds, apartments, hereditaments, or an enthusiasm for or concerning them ․ unless the understanding whereupon the activity should be brought, or some reminder or note thereof, might be in composing and marked by the gathering to be charged therewith ․All references to statutes are to RSMo 2000, unless generally showed. 2. Appealing party refers to Norden v. Friedman, 756 S.W.2d 158 (Mo. banc 1988) for the recommendation that the privilege to mine minerals from genuine property is an agreement managing the offer of an enthusiasm for land to which the statute of frauds applies. Norden held the record was misty, yet in the event that the agreement was not to be performed
Jim and Laura perform to their commitment of the agreement. For their situation, Stan did not respect his piece of the agreement by not discounting their cash when the choice was not to buy the auto. Stan additionally committed a few errors since he said," the store was intended to be a piece of the agreement to buy the auto". Stan knew he was in an agreement since he let it be known. Stan additionally utilized "signified" since he knew he didn't talk about that part already with Jim and Laura.
Luigi Vittatoe Dr. George Ackerman ELA2603 Administrative and Personnel Law December 2, 2015 Week 6 Case Study: R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide? R. Williams Construction Company petitions for review of a final order of the OSHRC for violations of the OSHA Act.
U.S. Supreme Court Case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, v. Sawyer The Supreme Court Case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company, v. Sawyer; case number 343 U.S. 579, 72 S. Ct. 863, 96 L. Ed. 1153 of 1952 reviewed the Executive Order given by then President Truman to the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of the United States’ steel mills during the Korean War (Justia Law). Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company believed that the order given by the president to seize the private property of the steel mills was an abuse of constitutional authority by the Executive Branch of the government. Their stance was that the authority to seize the property was in lawmaking powers that Congress had not given to the President (Justia Law).
A final legal concern is Rita’s affair with her business partner Sam. While in this affair, there has been an access of unaccounted money towards her business from Sam. Financially her business is prospering because of Sam’s contributions, because of it there may be future legal concerns that may arise from her having to account for this money. Cultural issues
INTRODUCTION This is a construction defect case wherein Defendant SMS Construction, LLC (“SMS Construction” or “Defendant”) is attempting to disclaim its duties and obligations as general contractor. SMS has not offered any evidence regarding damages. The Court must exclude all testimony and opinion from Defendant regarding damages. Likewise, Defendant has not offered any evidence that third-party subcontractors and/or Plaintiff James Bannie (“Plaintiff” or “Bannie”) caused or contributed to the damage at the Property; this evidence and testimony must be excluded. The Court must also exclude damage from Mr. Geoffrey Jillson of Guy Engineering because his testimony will be based on hearsay which is inadmissible and he does not qualify as an expert to testify
This Parol evidence rule, which has been considered as a common law rule, prevent the parties to the written contract from providing any additional extrinsic evidence, which reveals an ambiguity and refines it, in addition to the terms prescribed in the written contract which appears as complete. The supporting justification to this rule is that since the parties to the contract have signed a final written contract, the extrinsic evidence of the terms and agreements held before should not be taken into consideration while construing the contract, as the contracting parties had already excluded them from the contract. In simple words, one may follow this common law rule to avoid any contradiction with the written contract.
However, it must be determined whether Das’s promise to come until Monday constitutes sufficient consideration. Since, no deposit was made that is there was not sufficient consideration. Das would have to prove that he gave some sort of consideration to Ali to keep the offer open and if Das has taken a bank loan, the court may consider it as a valid consideration. Otherwise, the agreement does not stand according to the law. Therefore, Das cannot have any legal action against
Terms which the communications of the parties concur or which are generally put forward in a writing expected by the parties as a last expression of their agreement regarding such terms as are incorporated in that may not be denied by confirmation of any former declaration or of a coexisting oral understanding yet may be clarified or supplemented. (https://www.law.cornell.edu) Additionally, necessities put forward in Section 2-201 must first be fulfilled if the agreement as adjusted is inside of its stipulations. Article II of the Uniform Commercial Code. A case of this segment can be Fairway Mach.
By saying this, the authors show they have tried to set agreed terms with
CRITICAL THINKING Step 1 To carry out a critical investigation and review of the above-presented case, it is important to understand the dynamics of this case. CyberTech is involved in a series of cases that relate to all the companies that are mentioned in the various lawsuits. These companies are; Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Anomolous, as well as Equation Set. In one way or the other, CyberTech’s involvement in the various lawsuits is intertwined.
Should the Postal Rule be Abolished? Contract law is a form of the law which focuses on agreements made between two or more parties. Contracts can be made in an informal manner and can also be made formally. Most people would recognise a contract to be a formal written document which states the conditions, warranties and description of an offer being made. However, that is not always the case.
INTRODUCTION As a part of the requirements for the Introduction to Hospitality Law subject, I am required to do a research and write an essay that provides evidence of the importance of knowledge of laws in the Hospitality Industry and five (5) key legal issues that affect this industry. CONTENT Hospitality law is related to the concept of legal liability and it is meant to legally protect both hosts and guests. Hospitality law covers many different type of businesses while the most common hospitality law clients are hotels and restaurants. (HG.org, nd) Hospitality law in a hotel is expected to protect the guests’ information and their safety.
