Business Legal Cases - Assignment Example

Business law Anne acted in favour of her friend and not neutrally as expected of her. By revealing to her that Peter could accept as low as $2,100,000 for the condominium, she was intentionally allowing her to purchase the condominium at the bottom price and not the highest possible price has she had been instructed. The $2,100,000 would have been a last resolution in case there was absolutely no buyer who could afford a higher price for a reasonable length of time. Anne therefore blocked the chances of Peter having buyers who purchase the condominium at higher prices. Even the friend could have bought it at a higher price after receiving a pay rise but Anne had already accepted $2,100,000. Anne’s intention to help the friend raise the money was not bad but she should have faithfully negotiated for the highest price on behalf of Peter. This is because anyone acting as an agent or conducting business on behalf of another is expected to act on the interest of their employer. Anne acted in favour of her friend and this act amounts to dishonesty and malpractice. Basing on this explanation, Peter is entitled to claim $200,000 from Anne because of her unfaithfulness to the terms of agreement. Peter is also entitled to this claim because the transactions were not made out of public information but out of non-public information. 2. Seline’s lack of concern about the safety of her personal assets is not warranted. This is because this lack of concern is a clear indication that she is not concerned about safety of her clients as she is about her property. It is clear that the lack of concern comes from the fact that most of her business property is under her own name and not the business name and any legal action resulting from harm to clients will always be taken against the company not her as an individual. This implies that in case of any legal action that will result to the confiscation of company property, only a small portion of her property will suffer. The consumer protection law requires that an organisation should be concerned about the safety of their products on their customers. 3. Some forms of legal businesses entities are more appropriate in reducing one’s tax liabilities and so help to maintain a large profit margin. A limited liability company (LLC) for example, is not subject to any federal taxes. At the same time, profits pass directly to the income of each of the members and these profits are taxed depending on the taxable profit outlined on form K-1. This means that a LLC cannot directly file taxes. This helps the LLC members to avoid a double taxation. This is unlike corporations which must be taxed and should file taxes accordingly. My advice therefore is that Tori should go ahead and get partners and register the business as a LLC. 4. At the time of passage in 1990, the intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was to specifically protect disabled people. This Act prohibits discriminations against disabled persons in terms of employment, public accommodation, transport, government activities and communication. The Act is therefore specific in its provisions and only covers those people with the already documented types of physical, sensory, cognitive, mental ,emotional and developmental types of disabilities. The above implies that not anyone suffering from any physical, sensory, cognitive, mental, emotional and developmental condition will be covered. A weak back, for example, is not covered. The progression of this condition can cause a disability but it is not a disability in itself. The Act does not cover people with causes of disabilities but persons already disabled. It should also be noted that a condition can only be considered as a disability if it substantially limits one or more major activities of life and a weak back does not qualify for this. Claims filed by persons with weak backs therefore indicate an abuse of this Act. The best way of reducing these claims is by making clear the provisions of the Act. Public education should also be conducted. 5. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of colour, race, sex , religion and nationality by individual employer, organisation and government agencies. This Title also prohibits employment discrimination against any person whosoever because of their association person from a given discriminated colour, race, sex or nationality. In some very specific situations, employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis on any of these protected traits if the given trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). This is to say that it is necessary for the performance of the particular job (FindUSLaw.com 2008). However, the employer must provide a proof that the given BFOQ element has a direct relationship with the ability to perform the job, that there is no less restrictive/reasonable alternative and that the BFOQ relates directly to the core mission of the business. An analysis of this situation indicates that the Joe, in collaboration with the employment agency, have discriminated against the Jews and the Blacks on the basis of colour and the discrimination is not based on BFOQ. Being a receptionist can be done by any qualified person despite their colour and the issue being considered by the employer is attitude of the customers. This Act does not provide for this. In this case, Joe and the employment agency have violated Title VII of the of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 6 While they were growing, the trees were current assets because they had the ability to be converted to cash within a period of one year. After being cut into lumber, the trees turned into quick assets. This is because at this state, they could quickly be converted into cash. Once they had been used to build the house, the trees became fixed or long-term assets. It was no longer possible to convert them top money directly and the building was not an asset to be disposed quickly or even never at all. Works Cited. FindUSLaw.com. (2008). "Civil Rights Act of 1964 – CRA – Title VII – Equal Employment Opportunities – 42 US Code Chapter 21". finduslaw. Online http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21. Retrieved on 16th December, 2011. Read More