Legal Analysis1
Conclusion
Mr. Washington demands compensation for the losses that Burger Ranch’s restaurant sustained as a result of the fire. He faxed a copy to Erica Marcus of the construction bid Burger’s restaurant accepted to reconstruct the premises, which came out to $464,900. In addition to the reconstruction costs, he also demands compensation for the potential profits the restaurant could have generated during the downtime.
Conclusion in Terms of Law
An acceptance is “a final and ineligible expression of assent to the terms of an offer”. Acceptance of an offer can be tenacious through the following guidelines: (1) the acceptance must be communicated with the intention of both parties to enter a mutual contract; however, the offer may be revoked prior to acceptance, (2) the offer can only accept the initial terms and can only be accepted by the intended offeree, (3) the offeree must accept the terms through a concrete method if authoritatively mandated by offeror. [Contracts Law: Offer and Acceptance]. Pine Trees failed to mention/incorporate their disclaimer of consequential damages in the initial terms, engendering a counter offer. (Aguilar Manufacturing v. Richfield) The three guidelines indicted above must be met by Burger Ranch to
…show more content…
Richfield The plaintiff, Aguilar, repines by saying “they failed to commence the within action within the one year constraint period that was expressly acceded to by the parties in indicting.” Aguilar would inductively authorize emulsion and Polycol 2151 from Richfield and would receive invoices infrequently with the orders. However, Richfield did not include the one year inhibition that verbally expressed “Any action by Buyer hereunder shall be commenced within one year after receipt of verbally expressed products.” Aguilar filed the lawsuit for breach of warranty, fraud, and negligent
The manager at that McDonald’s restaurant, the defendant, knew Matt had to drive a long way to and from work. Even though this information was known, the manager gave an opportunity to Matt to work a cleaning shift between his regular shifts. My thoughts are that the manager should not have given the opportunity to Matt on the first place as the manager knew Matt was already working from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm on April 4th, 1988 and 5:00 am to 8:21 am on April 5th, 1988 and had to drive 20 minutes to and from work. Adding a cleanup shift from 12:00 am to 5:00 am on April 5th, 1988 made Matt’s working hours excessively long. By the end of his shift, it is obvious that Matt is over worked and not in a condition to drive back. This lack of judgement from the manager eventually lead to the accident and death of Matt, and massive injury to Frederick M. Faverty, the plaintiff. Due to this lack of judgement, I think the verdict against McDonald’s to pay $400,000.00 to the plaintiff is
Today what is known as In-N-Out Burger was first founded by Harry Snyder and his wife Esther Snyder in 1948. The first location was in Baldwin Park California (ReferenceforBusiness.com). Now with over 200 locations in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Texas it has been ranked number one in many polls (ReferenceforBusiness.com). Today its headquarters are in Irvine California.
In the season two episode two, Marcus Lemonis takes a visit to A. Stein Meat Products that is fabricated Beef and Lamb Cuts. The whole sale meat supplier is in Brooklyn, New York and it does 50 million dollars of revenue annually with a high operating costs in razor thin margins. The A. Stein Meat Products has been selling their quality meats for about 75 years to the finest restaurants along with shipping their products all over the country. In the last year they lost $400,000 if it continues the A. Stein Meats will be forced to close its business and with about 47 employees will be out of work.
1. Publix Supermarkets is a company that prides itself on providing the best customer service to its customers. This includes updating prices, products in-stock, and each store has a properly trained staffed. The company developed an innovative IS, an automated ordering process which allows the grocery department to receive an accurate order.
In this paper a description of the background of In-N-Out Burger and the Snyder family will be given. The business’ effectiveness and performance will be analyzed. A description of how the business and founders can be a model for leadership will be described. The readings and lessons learned from Biblical Leadership Perspectives will be reviewed.
Prof. Chatelain gave a talk about segregation, restaurants and the rise of fast food, titled, "Burgers in the Age of Black Capitalism: How Civil Rights and Fast Food Changed America after 1968". She grew up eating a lot of fast-food and saw its ability to connect its customers. She documented how the McDonalds in Ferguson served as a sanctuary for protestors and policemen during the time Mike Brown was killed by a police officer, Darren Wilson. Professor Chatelain talked about the history of McDonalds. The chain was founded in San Bernardino, California and proved to be a huge success. McDonalds began offering a piece of its business to people, which pulled in a lot of interest from blacks in urban areas. Many blacks began owning and operating
The case of Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S. Ct. 2174, 85 L. Ed. 2d 528 (1985) addressed the issue of personal jurisdiction and whether or not it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Burger King, is a Florida corporation whose principal offices are located in Miami. The defendant, John Rudzewicz, was a resident of Michigan and a principal of a Michigan franchise. Rudzewicz, as a franchisee owner, had been given a license to use Burger King’s name and logo (trademarks) to operate a Burger King in Michigan. The contract between the franchisor and franchisee stated that the franchisor relationship (contract) is under the control of Florida. Other provisions of the contract include required monthly payments of fees and royalties to Miami headquarters, and all major decisions and problems had to be communicated with headquarters. In addition, the franchisee had to conduct business at a leased restaurant facility for 20 years. However, the defendant failed to fulfill franchisee obligations by not keeping up with his monthly payments of fees and royalties that he owed to Burger King in Florida. As a result, Burger King sued for a diversity suit against Rudzewicz in an effort to get back the money that they were owed. Burger King claimed a breach of contract, specifically the “Franchise Agreement”, between Burger King (the franchisor) and Rudzewicz (the franchisee). The case eventually made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court (Case Briefs).
One Man Decides to Teach an Annoying Child a Lesson While He Waits in Line Behind Him at Burger King. His Brilliant Lesson Shocked Everyone.
Question 6: Pizza Hut case: Is either franchisor or franchisee liable for sexual harassment? If so, what type of sexual harassment occurred? Please fully explain your answer.
For years now Pizza Hut, Inc. has been the leader of the pizza industry. We have been privileged to have had the opportunity to perform research on advancements we can make to maintain this reputation. Based upon our Economic Analysis we have decided to not launch the BIGFOOT pizza. The following gives a detailed analysis, offers alternatives to improving the Pizza Hut experience, and gives reasons why we came to this conclusion.
Within the fast food industry there are three key success factors that must be considered in order to obtain a competitive advantage in a generally saturated environment. It includes: 1) differentiation, providing 2) high value and 3) convenience.
Burger King delivers value to their customers through their products, prices, and place and promotion strategies - (“BK doesn’t just promise value, they actually deliver value”). Burger king has been in existence for 60 years and is growing rapidly in many other countries. Burger King delivers quality, great tasting food which satisfies ones need or wants and captures the value of customers even before the first purchase is made. Burger King has products very unique from other competitors such as KFC and McDonalds. The difference is that Burger King does not limit their customers in terms of what they eat. For example, when I spoke to a customer also big fan of Burger King, he mentioned that the sauces are left public for the customer to decide on which sauce to have rather than giving the customer one kind of sauce such as McDonalds and KFC. The cold beverage is also self-help service in which customers can help themselves to a bottomless drink. This way the customer feels free to choose what satisfies the need or want.
There are 5 fundamental elements of a contract that is the offer, acceptance, veritable aim to make lawful relations, thought, and limit. Section 2(h) of Contracts Act 1950 states that "a contract is an understanding enforceable by law". In this case, there are 2 elements said that is, offer and acceptance. Section 2(a) of Contracts Act 1950 states that "when one individual means his eagerness to do or to avoid doing anything, with a view to acquiring the consent of that other to such demonstration of restraint, he is said to make
* In your past experience, When you have entered a new workplace in the past, describe how you have gone about meeting and developing relationships with the employees you will be managing.
The commercial that caught my eye to write about is the Burger King chicken fries commercial. The commercial uses talking chickens as the main persuasive element. The commercial starts by showing two chickens approaching another chicken that is hanging around a group of french fries on a stair case. The two chickens taunt the chicken for hanging out with the packages of french fries. They state that he might want to be a french fry, and the chicken replies with “Maybe I do want to be a french fry.” The two chickens mock for saying that he wants to be a french fry, but every time they mock him he states “Maybe I do”, referring to being a chicken fry. After arguing for quite some time, the chicken that is with the fries looks at the camera all serious like and says “Maybe I do… want to be a french fry.” Once the chicken scene is completed the commercial goes straight into a viewing of the finished “chicken fry.” From the looks of it on the commercial it makes me want to go out and get some myself and I’m sure the fry and chicken eaters feel the same way, who would resist something called a “chicken fry”?