Expert answer:Business Law Module help, Law homework
Answer & Explanation:milestone_two_guidelines_and_rubric.pdf Law moduel 2.docx Here is the grade rubric and first part of this moduleHere is the require part:”Submit Final Project Part I Milestone Two, the Application of the Law to the Facts and Impact Assessment sections (Sections IID and IIE) of the memorandum for Final Project Part I.For additional details, please refer to the Final Project Part I Document and the Final Project Part I Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric in the Assignment Guidelines and Rubrics section of the course.”
milestone_two_guidelines_and_rubric.pdf
law_moduel_2.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
MBA 610 Final Project Part I, Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric
Overview: In Milestone Two you will continue to submit sections of the memorandum. In Module Five, submit the Application of the Law to the Facts and the
Impact Assessment (IID and IIE) of the memorandum.
Prompt: In the Application of the Law to the Facts section, use the precedents you have selected in case law, regulations, and substantive law, assess the
strengths and weaknesses of your company’s arguments in court. In the Impact Assessment section, based on your analysis, how do you believe this situation
may affect public perception of your selected company? Make sure to incorporate the feedback you receive on this assignment into your final submission.
You are an intern at the legal department at one of the companies in the following scenario (Greene or Howell) and tasked with compiling a memo for your
supervisor, which will be used to formulate an official executive brief of these lawsuits.
Scenario
Mary Jane and Allen Greene, a married couple, own a high-end costume jewelry manufacturing and distribution company called Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale,
LLC. The principal place of business for Greene’s Jewelry is in Derry, New Hampshire, where it owns a warehouse and two storefronts.
Originally started in 1957, the company expanded over five decades, and it now employs 502 individuals in a variety of departments, including sales and
marketing, research and development, human resources, and manufacturing.
The primary asset of Greene’s Jewelry is its patented process for creating a synthetic gold-colored material called “Ever-Gold,” which is used in Greene’s
necklaces, rings, earrings, and bracelets. Ever-Gold is impervious to scratches, discoloration, oxidization, and is marketed as “everlasting gold.”
Jennifer Lawson, who has been employed for three years as a junior executive secretary in the research and development department at Greene’s Jewelry, has
just learned that she is pregnant. She has earned high marks on each of her annual reviews with the company, with the exception of the fact that she routinely
shows up 15 to 30 minutes late for work. Otherwise, she is deemed to be professional, articulate, diligent, and skilled in her role with the company. When Lawson
advises the head of human resources, Lisa Peele, that she may have to take additional time off as a result of some high-risk factors that she will face during the
course of her pregnancy, she is told that her position has been eliminated. The specific words are: “Congratulations Jennifer! That is exciting news for you. We do
not need to worry about time off, though, because, regrettably, I was just going to let you know that we are downsizing and no longer have a need for any of our
junior executive secretaries.”
Jennifer is distraught, and immediately returns to her desk to clear it out as instructed. She removes all of her personal items, as well as the projects she was
working on prior to her discussion with Lisa Peele. When she returns to her home, she realizes that she has inadvertently taken a draft letter to Greene’s patent
attorney, which details the secret process for creating Ever-Gold.
Although Greene’s Jewelry requires all of its executives to sign covenants not to compete and confidentiality agreements, Jennifer was only required to sign a
confidentiality agreement, by which she agreed never to disclose any information that she might acquire from Greene’s regarding the process used to create
Ever-Gold.
Panicked, and knowing that she needs a job, she calls one of Greene’s competitors, Howell Jewelry World, and advises its hiring manager that she is a former
employee of Greene’s, that she needs a job, and that she has confidential information about Ever-Gold that would help Howell compete with Greene’s. The
hiring manager at Howell, Naomi White, schedules an interview with Jennifer for the following day.
At the end of the interview, Naomi makes an offer to Jennifer to begin work with Howell immediately, but she conditions the offer on Jennifer’s execution of an
employment contract. The contract contains two specific provisions that Naomi insists Jennifer read and initial, in addition to signing the contract as a whole. One
of those provisions states that Jennifer will disclose the information she has regarding the Ever-Gold process prior to commencing work with Howell. The other
provision is a covenant to not work for any competitor of Howell for two years after she leaves the employ of Howell, irrespective of the reason for leaving, and
whether she quits or is fired. Jennifer initials both of the provisions, signs the contract for employment, and gives Naomi a copy of the letter that she removed
from her desk at Greene’s.
One week after she starts working with Howell, Jennifer is fired for chronic tardiness, and she thereafter gets a job working as a sales associate with the only
other jewelry company in town, Triumph Jewels.
Meanwhile, Greene’s learns that Howell has acquired knowledge of the secret process used to create Ever-Gold, and that Howell has tweaked the process slightly
so as to avoid any patent infringement issues but to still create a product with similar characteristics and qualities of Ever-Gold. Howell, for its part, has learned
that Jennifer is working for a competitor and fears that Jennifer will disclose the process to Triumph. Finally, one of Howell’s customers had developed a
disfiguring rash as a direct result of the new process Howell has begun using in its jewelry.
Greene’s sues Jennifer for breach of the confidentiality agreement when it learns that she has given confidential information to Howell. Jennifer counter-sues
Greene’s for wrongful termination. Howell sues Jennifer for breach of the covenant not to compete, and Jennifer counter-sues for fraudulent inducement,
believing that she was tricked into signing the employment contract with Howell and that Howell was never interested in hiring her, but was interested only in
acquiring information on the process to create Ever-Gold. Howell also sues Triumph, claiming that it knew or should have known that Jennifer was subject to a
covenant not to compete, and that Triumph should therefore be bound by its provisions.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
II.
Client’s Case
D. Application of the Law to the Facts: Using the precedents you have selected in case law, regulations, and substantive law, assess the strengths
and weaknesses of your company’s arguments in court. Is it probable your company will win this legal dispute?
E. Impact Assessment
i. Based on your analysis, how do you believe this situation may affect public perception of your selected company? Will the public
discourse reflect possible legal outcomes? Be sure to use specific examples.
ii. Make suggestions on how to alleviate any damages to your selected company’s public perception going forward. Will action(s) related
to the other party be appropriate?
iii. Recommend how the company should modify specific business practices to avoid similar situations in the future.
Guidelines for Submission: Your memorandum should be 4–5 pages, using 12-point Times New Roman font and one-inch margins. You should use current APA
style guidelines for your citations and reference list. Generally speaking, the best memos include references to at least two cases for each point of law that is
mentioned. Students also earn high marks when they cite cases that appear to support a different legal resolution than the one presented by the student, and
then distinguish that case from the scenario described in this assignment. Such distinctions demonstrate exemplary understanding of the course materials
Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more information,
review these instructions.
Critical Elements
Application of
the Law to the
Facts
Proficient (100%)
Logically assesses the strengths
and weaknesses of company’s
arguments in court based on
selected laws and precedents,
addressing likelihood of winning
legal dispute
Impact
Assessment:
Public
Perception
Logically evaluates how legal
situation may affect public
perception of company, providing
specific examples
Impact
Assessment:
Damages
Makes appropriate suggestions
for how to alleviate damages to
company’s public perception,
addressing whether actions
related to other party are
appropriate
Impact
Assessment:
Business
Practices
Makes appropriate
recommendations for how the
company should modify specific
business practices to avoid similar
situations in the future
Needs Improvement (75%)
Assesses the strengths and
weaknesses of company’s
arguments in court based on
selected laws and precedents,
addressing likelihood of winning
legal dispute, but with gaps in
logic, detail, or relevance to
selected laws or precedents
Evaluates how legal situation may
affect public perception of
company, providing specific
examples, but has gaps in logic or
detail
Makes suggestions for how to
alleviate damages to company’s
public perception, addressing
whether actions related to other
party are appropriate, but not all
suggestions are appropriate or
key details are missing
Makes recommendations on how
the company should modify
specific business practices to
avoid similar situations in the
future, but not all
recommendations are
appropriate or key details are
missing
Not Evident (0%)
Does not assess the strengths and
weaknesses of company’s
arguments in court based on
selected laws and precedents
Value
24
Does not evaluate how legal
situation may affect public
perception of company
22
Does not make suggestions for
how to alleviate damages to
company’s public perception
22
Does not make recommendations
for how the company should
modify specific business practices
to avoid similar situations in the
future
22
Articulation of
Response
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact readability
and articulation of main ideas
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
Total
10
100%
Introduction
The company brings derivatives claims by its heads authority that restricts reasons of its
application by the common law rule. According to the rule, which is a subject to exceptions,
individual workers cannot bring actions on behalf of the company against it directors who are
responsible for breaching of their duties to the company. It is only possible bringing such claims
if the wrong doing are not rectifiable or even treated as such. With the identification of an un
rectifiable wrong, derivative action by an individual might not take place, with the heads meeting
to decide on suing the wrong doing, provide that the individual actions affect the company.
The companies law commission recommends there should be new derivative procedure
that is more modern, accessible and a flexible criteria that will determine whether an individual
will pursue an action and leave of the court required for continuity of derivative action. The
company law Reforms Steering Groups that are made similar to its recommendation regarding its
simplified procedures for related actions. From section 260-264 of part 11 of the company Act
2006 is where this recommendation was adopted. The act provides derivative claims that bring in
related cause of action that is vested in the company that seeks relief on its behalf with the
permission of the court. The act further states that its derivative claims may be brought by
petition under section 994. The section is concerned with unfairly prejudicial conduct of
company affairs (Aguilera, 2006).
The effect of this section is the enabling of court ordering derivative claims if a petition is
brought on ground under this section. It claims that a company’s affairs are being conducted in
prejudicial manner to interest of members or to some part thus successful. It is unlikely that this
procedure will be made of much use, except its appearance to plentiful of its presenting petition
of derivative claim availability (Litvak 2007).
Facts and Laws
Unlawful Termination
This law provides rules that determine whether firing of on employee is conducted in a
proper manner and its available remedies if it was not conducted in proper manner. This law
primarily concerns violations of express or the implied employment contracts. This case focuses
on whether the termination was contrary to the agreement between the two parties, who are the
employer and employee. According to our case the termination was unlawful, because of
Jennifer’s pregnancy. The law prohibits discrimination in work places based on sex, disability
normal health issues like pregnancy. They are found in the Title V11 of the civil Right Act of
1964. The Federal anti-discrimination law protects employees from discharge or penalization
with respect of employee’s terms and conditions, based on color, race, age and pregnancy. State
laws mirror the above categories of protection and instantly becoming tougher than the federal
laws. Jennifer was right to sue Greene’s for wrongful termination.
Contract Issues
This is the authority of parties entering into a legal binding. A person entering in to a
contract should typically be 18 years and above and mentally competent. If a person lacks
competence of entering into a contract, it is not possible enforcing the contract in court.
According to this case Jennifer was involved in a general statute written contract with the Howell
commonly referred to as statute of Frauds. She was to sell out green’s ever green plans in
exchange of a job. The contract turned out to be a fraud after she was fired from the job after
shortly working with the Howells. She also breach Greene’s contract by selling out its important
information of Ever-Gold. This is prohibited according to the law. She also broke contract
between her and Howells not working with any of its competitors. This contract issues arose
between the employers and the employees, required court inter venation.
Laws
There arose a dispute between Jennifer and her first employer Greene’s of selling out
Ever-Gold idea to the Howells. Greene’s accused Jennifer of failing to perform under the terms
of their contract agreement. Under the law Jennifer failed to fulfill on end of their bargain under
their agreed contract and breached the contract. After the breach Greene’s company wished the
enforcement of the contract on its terms, which was to be enforced by the law. Jennifer on the
other hand sued Greene’s for wrongful termination. The dismissed her of duty due to pregnancy
which is prohibited by the law. Dispute also arose between Jennifer and the Howell’s. They
accused her of working with their competitor resulting to another breach. One the other hand
Jennifer accused Howells of getting her into a contract of trick.
Precedent
Unlawful Termination
Jennifer case supports the company’s unlawful termination. They terminated her due to
her pregnancy condition. Pregnancy is a natural thing, and thus prohibited by the law as a reason
to terminate a woman from work. This law was enforced to protect women because they are the
most affected. The case would be supported in court because the company was not just on her
termination from her job. If the company had coped with her condition and allowed her to work
and allowed her of her additional time, they would be just to her.
Contract Disputes
There arose many contact disputes according to this case. First case came with Jennifer’s
breaching of Greene’s important information. She was able to sell out Greene’s Ideas to Howells
who was a competitor. Jennifer was able to get into a contact with Howells Company. They had
an exchange of benefits for both the parties. According to the contract Jennifer was to sell out
Greene’s company idea to Howells Company, while on the other hand Jennifer was to get a job.
These contracts were successful but a dispute arose when Jenifer was dismissed from her job.
She realized later on they she had been tricked and sued the company of signing the employment
contract to selling out the idea, but they were not of her interest. Howells also sued Triumph for
subject covenant of not allowing Jennifer working for them. She was into a contract of not
working with Howells competitors.
Facts to be Determined
Facts
There are many facts that lead to these disputes. First was Jennifer dismissal from
Greene’s company. This lead Jennifer wants to work with its competitor, for revenge purposes.
She was able to work with Howells who tricked her in a contract and later on sucking her. She in
exchange gave out Greene’s idea which was used by Howells. After the being sucked, she went
on to work with Howells competitor also selling out the company’s idea to Triumph. There were
so many contract breaches between this company and the worker. One case resulted to another
case.
Establish
Every decision made in life has an impact. These cases all arose because of the unlawful
termination of Jenifer. The termination resulted to the breaching of the important information to
the competitors. This breaching was a trick in the end result. The trick also resulted to the
employee working with another of their competitors thus selling the Idea further. Contract should
be adhered to and followed. Also using the just reasons for job dismissal is important.
Employees should also educate on contracts. They should also read keenly on contracts before
signing, If Jennifer was not dismissed off work due to her condition Greene’s competitor
Howells and the rest would not have gotten the Ever-Gold idea.
Reference
Aguilera, R. V., Williams, C. A., Conley, J. M., & Rupp, D. (2006). Corporate governance and
social responsibility: A comparative analysis of the UK and the US. Corporate
Governance: An International Review, 14(3), 147-158.
Litvak, K. (2007). The effect of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on non-US companies cross-listed in the
US. Journal of corporate Finance, 13(2), 195-228.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades