Accounting 261 Business Laws: Fact Patterns

Names Professor Course Date Accounting 261 Business Laws Fact Pattern 1 Tony The accident here took place on a street while an SUV vehicle was being driven by Tony. The car had three passengers at the moment when the incident took place. A garbage disposal truck was moving at a higher speed than the one recommended and when it reached a red traffic light it ended up rear ending into the SUV that was a Porsche which costs $85,000. The two passengers at the back of the vehicle were badly wounded and they sought medication and treatment immediately after the incident occurred. First and foremost, most often jurisdiction will require a person to have a valid automobile insurance for the injured to sue for the damages which may have resulted from the vehicle collision. However, this applies only in some states such as New York. Small claims can still be made regardless of what the insurer did after the incident. Just because these individuals denied liability is not a show that they are not liable. In fact, it is only the jury or the judge who will decide how to impose liability definitively (Zweigert, Konrad, and Hein 232). In most cases, the insurers have no choice in the matter but to cover the claims regardless of whether the insured under their cover is not liable as they try to avoid paying defense cost. This type of case warrants a civil claim for the pain and damage caused by the careless driver of the lorry. The retaliation will as a result claim damages; however, it is important to note that such charges may not at all have any effect, unless you were driving when you are aware that you do not have a valid automobile liability policy. At the same time in such a case, a moving violation can as well be used to support the ideology of negligence. The law enforcement, the police, has no right whatsoever to determine fault, even though they are given a chance to voice their opinion in reporting the incident. Paul The other individual relevant in this case is Paul, who owns an electronic appliance shop in an effort to attract customers; he began with a rewarding strategy. He went to the Local Dollar saver newspaper to print an advertisement which states that “the first person enters the store at 9:00 AM, and who purchases a 19 inch Plasma TV will also walk away with one free barbecue set.” At around 9:00 AM Jim walks into the store and decides to buy the 19inch plasma TV; however he was informed that the appliance store did not have any barbecue sets at the moment. This is false advertisement per se. An agreement was later signed on the same day where he would purchase the 19 Plasma Television sets from the company Sony. Within two weeks after the arrival of the Television sets, the entire shipment now gets rejected by Paul citing that the contract was nonexistent attributed to the quantity being vague. Owners of businesses are often targeted over business transaction disputes. The most famous is the one involving nonpayment of cash, and failure to provide what is expected over technical issues. All in all it is as a result of owners being able to control the cash flow and the ones to make the decisions as to who to pay and how much. The focus of this case is sometimes limited to, business owners and contractors or subcontrac...