Business Law Cases

Case one

            Question 1

On grounds of the presented facts by the case, Brandt holds a very rationale case against the scientific center in Boston as compared to the case in contradiction of the health center.  This is mainly because the conducted transaction was fully based for services provision.  Brenda headed to the health center in order to access treatment services which cost her much higher amount of money.  In addition the treatment resulted in development of several complications based on the implantation of defective sling placed into the arm.  This therefore shows that the case against the medical center by Brenda was not reasonable because the center was only a medical services provider and therefore the goods defectiveness was not their responsibility.  The case against the scientific company would therefore be more reasonable because the corporation responsibility is no ensure that the goods are quality and based on the health and legal requirements (Gaylord, & Miller, 2009).

Question 2

Since Brenda does not hold a rationale case against the medical center as the case is not a merchant one no legal favor provision can work against the center based on UCC.  This therefore implies that the health center has the opportunity of recovering the fee paid to the lawyer. This is because the center holds no case because the harm caused to the patient can be cased against the scientific Boston Corporation who delivered defect products.

Case Two

Question 1

Malmberg did not act in a way that is ethical in the presented case. Ethically by definition is acting in accordance with right rules or standards (Clarkson, 2010).  In the presented case Malmberg failed to act in an ethical way as he well understood that paintings selling were not an ethical thing to be involved in.  Despite the fact that he was a merchant who was entitled and entrusted with those paintings and held the transferring rights power the decisions that he made in his practice cannot be termed as ethical.

Question 2

            It is clear that Malmberg acted in a criminal way. The act can be considered as criminal because he transferred Red Elvis in the exchange of cash and did not inform the owner as she had to establish the act herself.  This therefore raises the concern of Brandt taking the decision to take the paintings ownership in spite of the existing evidence that Red Elvis was in full belonging of Lindholm.  I ethical nature Malmberg can be sued for theft. His act was additionally criminal because the court convicted him for embezzlement of gross fraud thus rendering the judge ant in plaintiff’s favor. This can thus be termed as a crime as it involves the violation of the rights of another individual (Gaylord, & Miller, 2009). This therefore establishes he support that his act was a criminal one although the complaint by the case plaintiff was withdrawn before the trial.

Question 3

Lindholm holds some responsibility for Red Elvis loss this is because she gave her full trust to Malmberg which was based on their collaboration relationship which had existed for thirty years. This therefore implies that she gave direct permission to Malmberg to attain the acts possession and she failed to provide detailed rules in protecting herself against their collaboration agreement. She should have designed policies in regard to their agreement in order to protect herself as well as all the involved parties.

 

 

 

 

 

References

            Clarkson, K. (2010). Business Law: Text And Cases: Legal, Ethical, Global and Corporate Environment. London: Cengage Learning.

            Gaylord, G., & Miller, R. (2009). Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases. London: Cengage Learning.