Ashford University BUS 311 Week 2, 3, 4 and 5 – Discussion Questions

Week 2 – Discussion 1Offer and AcceptanceRead Case Question #39: Intentional Concealment in Chapter 7. Provide a discussion for eachof your answers to questions a, b, c, and d. Respond to at least two other students’ postings.Case #39. Intentional ConcealmentGortino, while trying to sell his house to Stein, was asked if he had ever seen or suspected termites in the house. Gortino replied that he had not, and that the house was sound. Several months after Stein had purchased the house, she learned from neighbors that Gortino had paid for soil treatment to eliminate termites.Can the contract for sale be canceled because of fraud?Was there a misstatement of a material fact?Did Stein suffer a loss as a result of Gortino’s actions?Can Stein sue for damages?Week 2 – Discussion 2Your initial discussion thread is due on Day 3 (Thursday) and you have until Day 7 (Monday) to respond to your classmates. Your grade will reflect both the quality of your initial post and the depth of your responses. Reference theDiscussion Forum Grading Rubric for guidance on how your discussion will be evaluated.Promissory EstoppelResearch the doctrine of promissory estoppel online. Use an actual case to help you discuss the following questions:Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine used in American law. Promissory estoppel permits a party to recover on a promise even if it was made without consideration. Basically it prevents a person from arguing that his or her promise should not be maintained. It also requires that reliance on the promise was reasonable, and that the person trying to enforce the promise actually relied on the promise to his or her loss.Kirksey v. KirkseyHow does this doctrine act as an exception to the elements and requirements of a contract?• Why does this doctrine exist?• Did the court reach the proper decision in the case you discussed?Week 3 – Discussion 1Agency LawRead Case Question #37 in Chapter 17. Provide a discussion for each of your answers to questions a, b, and c. Respond to at least two other students’ postings.37. Agent or EmployeeApex Truck Company had an established rule that its truck drivers were not allowed to carry passengers in the trucks. Further, this rule was included in the contract between the union and the company. Peterman, a driver for Apex, invited a friend to ride in his truck on a day’s delivery trip. As a result of Peterman’s carelessness during the trip, the truck was involved in a collision and his friend was seriously injured.a. Is the employer responsible to third parties for injuries caused by an employee in the normal performance of employment?b. Would Peterman be held responsible for the injuries?c. Is an employer liable to third parties for all actions of an employee?.8181819915771px;”=””>Week 4 – Discussion 1Intellectual Property LawDiscuss Questions #27 and # 28 in Chapter 25. Conduct research to provide examples to support your position on each question. Respond to at least two other students’ postings.27. Intellectual Property Why is it important to society that the law protect intellectual property?Week 4 – Discussion 2Employment LawDiscuss Question #27 in Chapter 28. Use your own personal employment experiences (if possible) to comment on this question. Respond to at least two other students’ postings.27. Employment Contracts Does the existence of an employment contract tend to benefit the employer more than it does the employee?Week 5 – DiscussionProduct LiabilityRead Case Question #34 in Chapter 29. Provide a discussion for eachof your answers to questions a, b and c. Respond to at least two other students’ postings.34. Who Can Be Held Liable Eddington operated a toy store and carried merchandise from both domestic as well as foreign manufacturers. As the holiday season approached, he found that he could reduce his costs by importing a stuffed toy from a developing country. One of the toys was responsible for an injury to a child, and the parents brought a product liability suit against Eddington. He claimed that he was unaware of the defects of the toy, because he did not manufacture it, but only sold it.a. Do the parents of the injured child have the right to sue Eddington instead of the manufacturer?b. Can a retailer be held liable for defective products?c. Is there anyone else who could be named in the suit?Response to Prof’s question: Who do you think should be liable here, if anyone?Week 5 – Discussion 2International LawDiscuss Question #28 in Chapter 31. Research the issue rules and policies that are implemented against foreign businesses in the United States and in one other country. Respond to at least two of your classmates’ postings.28. How do governments attempt to control foreign businesses operating within their boundaries?