The case is about conflict between Dr Doe (Doe) and drugs companies. Dr Doe is a highly-brain powered scientist. He just appraised with Noble Prize in medicine for what he had done in the development of highly effective drug to prevent the common cold. Giant Drug Company is interested to hire Doe. Francis Stein (Stein), the president of this company has been negotiated with Doe to market a new drug. However, the competitor, MARK Drugs company also interested in hiring Doe, since this occurred, the case became debatable. Case As Stein has intention to hire Dr Doe, both of them have been engaged in a deep negotiation. Dr Doe was approached to become vice president of Giant Drug Company. After sometimes, Dr Doe decide that he will accept a position according to their negotiation. But, this needs to be underlined that the negotiation was merely discussed about marketing a new drug. There was no salary discussed in that negotiation. On the 1st of May, Dr Doe sent a letter to Stein that he agreed to become Giant Drug Company’s vice president. The amount of salary as well as period also written in the letter he sent. He would work in Giant Drug Company for four years within $ 500,000 annual salary. This statement will be considered as an offer. Due to the letter was delivered on the 1st May; Stein received it within two days. On the 3rd of May, after reading the letter, Stein directly contacted Dr Doe by phone. Stein stated that the written salary is too high. Stein offered a lower salary, which is $ 300,000 per annum. This is believed as a counter offer. Doe considered the counter offer as an unreasonable amount considering that he would in charge of research in marketing new drug. His intellectuality in developing highly eff... ... middle of paper ... ... research in pharmaceutical industry. If one of those drug companies hires Dr Doe and the project research success, there is a possibility that one company would take over market share and could increase their sales volume. This will end up creating a statement that this company is greater than that company. Therefore, specific performance seems more appropriate to be applied in this case than damages based on competition reason. Beside specific performance, injunction also fit to this case. The court could inquire MARK Drugs company to stop approaching Dr Doe to work with them. Conclusion If Stein and Dr Doe contract were exist, Stein was entitled for rebuttable. When this case is brought in to the court, the decision is likely about remedies (equitable remedies). Specific performances and injunction are the most appropriate remedies that can be applied.
In the case of Michael T. Vandall, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant v. Trinity Hospitals, a corporation, and Margaret C. Nordell, M.D., the issue is about retaliatory discharge. It deals with problems with Trinity Hospital in North Dakota, Dr. Margaret Nordell and Dr. Michael Vandall, both physicians working in the OB-GYN department.
In the plaintiff’s suit, he alleged the surgery did not go well because the hospital had hired a surgeon, who was not competent or qualified enough to perform the surgery therefore; the hospital was just as negligent as the doctor was. Before the trial date, Dr. Salinsky and his insurance company, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, settled with plantiff out of court on the basis they will be released from the suit upon payment of $140,000 (Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital). Although, Salinsky settled with plaintiff prior to trial, there was still “question of whether he was negligent in the manner in which he performed the operation on July 11, 1975, remained an issue at trial, as it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that Salinsky was negligent in this respect to establish a
Nurse finders later assigned Drummond to work at a Kaiser facility as a medical assistant. The Plaintiff Sara Montegue was a medical assistant at Kaiser. Drummond and Montague had a disagreement, Montague didn’t think it was much of a big argument to report it. Both Drummond and Montague had a discussion about misplaced lab slips where Drummond raised her voice. A few weeks after the discussion, Montague left her water bottle at work. Montague later drank from her water bottle and her tongue and throat started to burn and she vomited. Drummond admitted that she had poured carbolic acid found in a Kaiser examination room into Montague’s water
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
Registered Nurse Pausits, a defendant out of the many involved with Parson’s case, has failed to provide Randy Parson with the correct prescription drug during his stay at Standish. The Plaintiff wanted to prove that she unsuccessfully administered medication to Randy Parsons and that a reasonable jury can conclude the fact Pausits was aware of the risks to Parsons. The court has reversed the grant of summary judgment to Nurse Pausits, because this case would rise to the level of deliberate indifference. Plaintiff Parsons revealed that Pausits perceived facts to infer substantial risk to Randy Parsons and drew the inference. She had to state she was aware, which she did, of a substantial risk. Evidence has shown that Nurse Pausits could have gotten Dilantian for Randy Parson if she viewed the situation as an emergency. Pausit’s case has discovered confirmation that she administered 100mg of Dilantin to Randy Parsons August 27, at 6:00 p.m. However, in Randy’s toxicology report, no Dilantin was shown in his body for 3 days before his death, which was August 28. Wellbutrin was shown in Randy’s body instead of Dilantin, which is a form of an anti-depressant that helps people suffering from seizures and can prevent causing a seizure. Displayed that Pausits signed Randy’s Medication Administration Record (MAR), when the prison log showed that Registered Nurse Alexander performed the medication August 27, raises a red flag as to who performed the medication and what prescription was given. The Plaintiff provided enough evidence towards Pausits in that she has unsuccessfully administered the medication to Randy and that Pausits was aware of a substantial risk to Randy Parsons. Because of this, a jury can place more significance on the t...
When discussing the concept of contract law, there exist two bodies of legal rules that may apply to the contract. These bodies are the common law of contracts and Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code or the UCC. The common law of contracts is court made and is constantly changing, but the UCC is required in every state within the U.S.A. It is important to know which one to use and when, as well as what the differences between them are.
Was the plaintiff a victim of job discrimination, which infringes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also identified as the Fair Employment Practices Act? Therefore, in regards to this case, before a presiding can be delivered, there are a number of questions that must be answered.
I am very pleased to write this letter of recommendation for Wilkister Tangasi, a first-year Master of Health Administration (MHA) student at the Ohio State University, for an administrative internship in your organization. Wilkister’s learning orientation, coupled with her excellent analytic and communication skills, will enable her success in your internship program.
In the legal issue titled Employment discrimination, it describes a situation where abc corporation decides to respond to what it sees as a moral obligation to correct for past discrimination by adjusting pay differences among its employee. This raises a lot of ethical conflict with abc’s employees and its shareholders for numerous reasons. Employees were treated unfair, Abc company can no longer be trusted as a good work ethic company, they have a bad reputation for discrimination and there might be a likelihood the company will go out of business due to its actions.
...s in stone. Rather, I will work towards a beneficial compensation package, if not a pay increase, then perhaps a higher title with concessions. The outcome of this negotiation should leave both sides satisfied. I will also research the department’s policy on compensation as well as reviewing my job description. Both of these are attainable in the Human Resources department. Furthermore, I will check websites that have listing of salaries and job descriptions to make sure my compensation is commensurate with my work. The scholarly article I will use to help plan out my tactics in my negotiation is “Dealcrafting: The Substance of Three-Dimensional Negotiations by David A. Lax, and James K. Sebenius”. This article explains that our understanding of negotiations are one dimensional. However, this new approach for a three dimensional negotiation can work in my favor.
Another claim for relief, tortuous interference with business, concerns the intentional act of the physician’s report to the sheriff with the knowledge that it might interfere with their contracted employment with the hospital. Actual damages and losses resulted when the nurses lost their jobs.
To accomplish these objectives, the Holland Enterprise will provide a compensation program that establishes and maintains competitive salary levels within the mark...
The case presented is that of Sam Stevens who resides in an apartment. He has been working on an alarm system that makes barking sounds to scare off intruders, and has made a verbal agreement with a chain store to ship them 1,000 units. He had verbally told his landlord, Quinn, about his new invention and Quinn wished him luck. However, he recently received an eviction notice for the violation of his lease due to the fact that his new invention was too loud and interrupting the covenant of quiet of enjoyment of the neighbors and for conducting business from his apartment unit.
One of the last remaining strongholds of classical contract law is the notion that contracts require offer and acceptance therefore, in order for a contract to become binding, offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations must exist. However contracts are formed in different ways for each different circumstance. (Shawn Bayern, Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept, 103 Cal. L. Rev. 67, 102 (2015)
The issue in this case is whether there is a legally binding contract between Roland and Bernie. The things that needs to be considered is whether there is an agreement between Roland and Bernie. If there is an offer and acceptance, then there is an existence of agreement. According to Section 2(a) of the Contract Act 1950, offer can be defines as when one person implies his/her willingness to another in order to acquire their consent. (Abdullah et al, 2011) The person who make the offer is known as ‘offeror’ or ‘promisor’. (Lee and Detta, 2009) An offer can be made in the method of orally, by conduct, writing or by the mixture of these forms. An offer must require an effective communication with offeree. The formation of contract when offeree accepted the proposal. (Dass, 2005)