Expert Answers

Description There are 2 projects in this assignment and I have attached all neccesary documents.

Description Jury: Q - Sm (first letter of last name) The Case of the Faulty Air-Conditioning System The Grove Theater purchased a large air-conditioning system from Acme Manufacturing Co. for its 1,000 seat facility. The system was purchased and installed in April, prior to the start of the summer season. The sales contract contained a statement that the system would provide sufficient cooling for 1,500 people to a maximum temperature of 72 degrees. The statement further said, “The seller makes no express warranties for this product.” At the beginning of June, it became apparent to Grove that the system did not work property; it provided cool air, but not enough to enable patrons to be fully comfortable. Grove complained in writing to Acme about the air-conditioning system and withheld payment but continued to use the machine during the summer months because there was not enough time to order another system; without any air conditioning at all, the theater would have had to close down. All three efforts by Acme to repair the system failed, and at the end of the summer, Grove demanded that Acme take the machine back. Acme refused to accept the machine and brought suit against Grove for the purchase price. The Trial Grove testified that the temperatures during the summer in the area where the theater was located were extremely warm and that air conditioning was absolutely essential to enable patrons to feel comfortable during the showing of movies. The theater stated that it relied on the wording in the sales contract that the system would produce sufficient cooling. It further stated that it could not return the air-conditioning system immediately after delivery because the theater would have had to close down and lose its customers for the entire summer. The theater also stated that returning a large system involved a great deal of effort and expense and that it did not want to return the system until it had obtained significant use from it. The Arguments at Trial Acme’s attorney argued that the specific wording in the sales contract disclaiming any express warranties prevented Grove from claiming that the system was defective. They further argued that the theater should have returned the system immediately when it discovered that the system was faulty. They also argued that when the theater used the system for three months, and received many benefits from it, it automatically gave up its right to rescind the contract and return the system. Grove’s attorneys argued that because of the size and weight of the system and the costs involved in returning it, Grove had a legal right to use the system for a reasonable amount of time and then return it. They further argued that the statement in the sales contract that the system would produce sufficient cooling outweighed the importance of the statement that there were no express warranties. The theater also argued that by keeping the machine and getting some benefit from it, it was able to mitigate its damages. Otherwise, the theater could have held the manufacturer responsible for the loss of profits. Questions to Decide: Who has the stronger arguments, Grove or Acme? Why? You are the jury hearing the case, for whom would you decide on the question of the alleged warranty? Why? You are the jury hearing the case, for whom would you decide on the question of the right to rescind the contract? Why? What do you think the law should be with regard to a problem of this nature involving something that is not easily returnable?

Description assignment 3 Suggested Length: 1400 to 2000 words Ethical Theories to Apply: Utilitarianism, Universal Ethics, Golden Rule, Virtue Ethics You are to consider, discuss, and evaluate all ethical theories and then choose the best one on which to base your recommendations. Explain why it is the best choice. You may reuse your facts and issues from Assignments 1 and 2. Task You work in the Ethics Department for ABC Company (ABC). Your department is dedicated to advising its employees about their ethical obligations in the corporate setting. You are an internal consultant who provides advice and most importantly, recommendations for action to employees of the firm. All communications you receive in this capacity are confidential. Luke, an employee of ABC, comes to you with the following scenario and asks for your advice. He wants to fully consider the situation. Your task is to advise and recommend a course of action based on the specified ethical lenses and facts as given. Your recommendation must be based on only one of the four ethical theories – not both or a combination of both. In other words, your reasoning must support your choice. Choose one theory only and support it with your reasoning. Below are the facts that Luke provides to you. ***** Luke has been asked to work on a project that involves developing land recently purchased by ABC to build an adult entertainment retail store. According to the plan, the land is located on the corner of the neighborhood where Owen, Luke’s brother, lives. Luke knows that as soon as the plans for the store are made public, property values for the surrounding neighborhood will decrease significantly. ABC plans to publicly announce the project one month from today. Luke is concerned about his obligations of confidentiality to his company. However, Luke is also very close to Owen, who recently told Luke that he received an offer to sell his house at an “okay” price given the current real estate market. Owen is considering selling but hasn’t made any final decision yet. He wonders if he might get a better offer a few years from now when the real estate market improves. What is the ethical issue, why is this an issue, and what should Luke do about it? ***** For assignment 3, prepare a memo, setting out your analysis and recommendations, that considers all the following ethical lenses: Utilitarianism, Universal Ethics (i.e., Kant’s categorical imperative), The Golden Rule and Virtue Ethics. You must choose only one of the four theories to support your recommendations. Remember that Assignments 1 and 2 are considered “drafts” for Assignment 3. In other words, you may revise and reuse parts of Assignments 2 and 3 (facts, issues, description of the ethical lenses) for Assignment 3, but please make sure that you make improvements where indicated. Your analysis for Assignment 3 will be different since you’re incorporating all four theories into your analysis. But you may reuse other elements of assignments 1 and 2 (facts, issues, description of the ethical lenses) if they are written as well as you can write them. Ethical Theories -- use these and only these theories to analyze the facts, support your reasoning, and make your recommendations. Golden Rule Kant & Categorical Imperatives Utilitarian Theory Aristotle and Virtue Theory

Description Final Contract Assignment 1. Invent a product or service (can be an app.) This could be the one you previously identified or a different one. The product/service is one you will market for profit. Assume the product/service has been developed and created and is ready for distribution. Do not concern yourself whether it can reasonably be realized. Be creative! 2. Draft a contract for the sale of the product/service to a retail establishment. The retailer could be a brick and mortar store, restaurant, hardware store, online marketplace, etc. 3. The contract should contain the necessary elements of a contract in accordance, i.e., the contract should include specifics on terms such as description, price, quantity, shipping or delivery, payments, etc. You may use other sources beyond your textbook. Do not use terms you do not understand. Do not just "copy and paste" a contract you find on the internet. Make this contract yours. (For the description terms you can include what your item or service does or accomplishes.) Also, very importantly, you are required to add at least seven (7) Boilerplate (common contract provisions) clauses which must include "arbitration" and "attorney fees and costs" clauses. See attached for sample boilerplate clauses which includes definitions and sample language to include. Boilerplate Clauses.1-2.pdf Your contract is worth 100 points; up to 50 points will be given for professionalism, which includes having a title for your document, proper formatting, alignment of paragraphs, spacing, spelling, and grammar; and up to 50 points on how well you incorporate all the necessary elements of a contract, including essential terms and boilerplate clauses, and followed the instructions. You must incorporate all elements described in this assignment in order to receive full credit. Points will be deducted for each term/clause not incorporated. This final contract is worth 25% of your grade. (Sample contracts may be found by googling samples contracts for sale of good or services; Findlaw; RocketLawyer.com; and other law sites. Also, a sample contract for the International Sale of Coffee can be found in your book at pages 383-386. Note, do not just copy and paste contracts you find. You must customize them according to the instructions above for your product or service,)

Description Legal Environment of Business The American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Model Rules of Professional Conduct (“MRPCs”) are a set of model rules regarding the ethical and professional responsibilities of United States lawyers. While not binding themselves, the MRPCs serve as models for the ethics rules of most state bar associations. The legal ethics rules of all 50 states and the District of Columbia are based at least in part on the MRPCs. MRPC 1.2(d) contains a general prohibition on assisting clients in committing crimes or engaging in fraud: A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law. (M.R.P.C. 1.2(d)) For this paper: Read Nick Bilton’s 2016 Fortune article and Chapter 13 of John Carreyrou’s 2019 book (these are both attached) Assume you are a junior attorney employed in the general counsel’s office of Chiat\Day who has been tasked with reviewing Theranos’ advertising claims. Research and write a 3- to 5-page essay in which you answer the following questions: Do you believe it would be possible to approve Theranos’s advertising claims without violating MRPC Rule 1.2(d)? Explain. If so, explain how you might be able to continue working on Chiat\Day’s Theranos account while also avoiding liability for violating MRPC Rule 1.2(d). In light of MRPC Rule 1.2(d), how would you communicate your concerns about Theranos's advertising claims to your supervisors? In light of MRPC Rule 1.2(d), how would you communicate your concerns about Theranos's advertising claims to Theranos principals such as Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani? Leaving MRPC Rule 1.2(d) aside, discuss your views on Theranos’s advertising claims from your own personal ethical perspective. Discuss your views on Theranos’ advertising claims from a Christian/biblical perspective. Citation: Your essay should include citations to at least three sources in MLA style Formatting: Write in Microsoft Word with 1.5-line spacing, 12-point Times New Roman typeface, and one-inch margins Legal Ethics Paper Criteria Ratings Pts Professionalism and formatting 5 Pts Outstanding 4 Pts Good 3 Pts Average 2 Pts Needs Improvement 1 Pts Poor 5 pts Thoroughly answers all assessment questions 5 Pts Outstanding 4 Pts Good 3 Pts Average 2 Pts Needs Improvement 1 Pts Poor 5 pts Demonstrates understanding of legal ethical issues 5 Pts Outstanding 4 Pts Good 3 Pts Average 2 Pts Needs Improvement 1 Pts Poor 5 pts Adequately explains personal ethical perspective 5 Pts Outstanding 4 Pts Good 3 Pts Average 2 Pts Needs Improvement 1 Pts Poor 5 pts Adequately explains Christian/biblical perspective 5 Pts Outstanding 4 Pts Good 3 Pts Average 2 Pts Needs Improvement 1 Pts Poor 5 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeUses proper MLA style citation 5 Pts Outstanding 4 Pts Good 3 Pts Average 2 Pts Needs Improvement 1 Pts Poor 5 pts Total points: 30

Description write a 400-word analytical memo (regarding deepfakes in AI and copyright issues with AI)to your boss addressing the following questions: What is the issue? Why does this issue arise? Should we be concerned, and if so why? What should society – regulators, companies, civil society, users - do about the issue?

Description This assignment is On Case 8.5, read the whole chapter and answer the case using the weight of reasoning framework while also analyzing the text. Answer Case 8.5 while referencing the book and answer the questions at the end of Case 8.5. MANAGINGBUSINESSETHICS:MAKINGETHICAL DECISIONS, ALFRED A. MARCUS AND TIMOTHY J. HARGRAVE , (2021). At the end the book is attached in a pdf. The assignment is1-3 pages no citation needed. Weight of Reason Framework Identify the ethical issue that you are faced with - what is it that you need to decide? Identify all of the facts that you know Identify different options for a course of conduct (typically: do nothing, do something, or some combination) Assess the consequences for those options (the assessment should include different stakeholders who would be affected by the option and the pros and cons as it relates to those stakeholders) Apply principles to those consequences (what type of philosophical principles are important to your decision) Determine a short-term solution (what should be done right now based on your analysis in steps 3-5) Determine a long-term plan of action (what can be done over time based on your analysis in steps 3-5) What lessons did you learn? This is more of a reflection of what should be done systemically so that this type of ethical issue does not present itself in the first place. Each chapter assignment has additional directions at the beginning of the Case problem. Criteria/ Rubric Quality of Analysis The student addresses all elements of the weight-of-reason framework, provides an in-depth analysis of each element, and reflects mastery of the course materials. Incorporation of course materials The student makes significant reference to course materials in their analysis. Writing style Writing is clear and well-organized with minimal spelling and grammar errors. Optional Additional Resources: Stakeholder Theory: https://www.smartsheet.com/what-stakeholder-theory-and-how-does-it-impact-organizationLinks to an external site. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epxmG3YRgok

Description This assignment is On Case 9.3 , read the whole chapter and answer the case using the weight of reasoning framework while also analyzing the text. Answer Case 9.3 while referencing the book and answer the questions at the end of Case 9.3. MANAGING BUSINESS ETHICS: MAKING ETHICAL DECISIONS, ALFRED A. MARCUS AND TIMOTHY J. HARGRAVE , (2021). At the end the book is attached in a pdf. The assignment is1-3 pages no citation needed. Weight of Reason Framework Identify the ethical issue that you are faced with - what is it that you need to decide? Identify all of the facts that you know Identify different options for a course of conduct (typically: do nothing, do something, or some combination) Assess the consequences for those options (the assessment should include different stakeholders who would be affected by the option and the pros and cons as it relates to those stakeholders) Apply principles to those consequences (what type of philosophical principles are important to your decision) Determine a short-term solution (what should be done right now based on your analysis in steps 3-5) Determine a long-term plan of action (what can be done over time based on your analysis in steps 3-5) What lessons did you learn? This is more of a reflection of what should be done systemically so that this type of ethical issue does not present itself in the first place. Each chapter assignment has additional directions at the beginning of the Case problem. Criteria/ Rubric Quality of Analysis The student addresses all elements of the weight-of-reason framework, provides an in-depth analysis of each element, and reflects mastery of the course materials. Incorporation of course materials The student makes significant reference to course materials in their analysis. Writing style Writing is clear and well-organized with minimal spelling and grammar errors. Optional Additional Resources: Sustainable Development Goals in 10 minutes or less: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xubK4T9Nc8ALinks to an external site. Base of the Pyramid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apgCZqGz_ekLinks to an external site. How Global Problems Affect Our Business and Work Environments: grand challenges.pdf

Description Each roundtable force (or community roundtable) will evaluate another group's plan. The program evaluation of the policing strategic plan is due by the end of the day on Sunday of Module 5. Students should use the Community Policing Strategic Plan - Program Evaluation Download Community Policing Strategic Plan - Program Evaluationtemplate to complete the assignment. The evaluators will provide a score and narrative assessment of the community policing plan. Strategies for success: Each student in the group should have their required portion draft completed by Thursday night. The group should combine and review the compiled final draft document by Saturday. Each roundtable member needs to post any changes or that they approve the document as is and are comfortable representing it to the community. Make sure that someone is designated to polish up the document. This member will ideally be someone who likes to work toward the end of the module. They should download the document from the collaborations space and then clean it up (spell, grammar check, address any tracked changes, remove any comment bubbles or differing font colors, etc.). One member of the group should submit the final version by clicking Submit Assignment. Submission Instructions The paper should be double-spaced and use the most current APA edition for references and in-text citations. The evaluation should be four to five pages in length. A minimum of two scholarly sources should be used to support the evaluation of the community policing plan. Each plan should be submitted by only one group member.

Description Gunson Street Games, Corp. Corporate Dissonance Longtime friends Joe Martin, Olivia Nomikos, and Nathan Diaz shared a mutual interest in creating and playing board games and decided to form a business that they dubbed Gunson Street Games. Each member of the trio contributed to the business in his or her own way. Joe contributed his business acumen, which is founded upon dual degrees in business administration and accounting. Olivia was the creative force behind GSG. She conceptualized GSG’s one-of-a-kind products, created prototypes, and oversaw game testing and production. Nathan oversaw marketing and contracting with retailers to carry GSG products. Nathan contributed $600,000 to cover GSG’s start-up expenses. The three incorporators completed the process of incorporating Gunson Street Games., Corp. (“GSG”) by filing the appropriate documents with the State of Michigan and drafting bylaws. The first organizational meeting took place on July 17th, 2020. At that time, Joe, Olivia, and Nathan were the incorporators and sole shareholders of the corporation. Joe, Olivia, and Nathan voted unanimously to appoint themselves to the Board of Directors. Additionally, Joe, Olivia, and Nathan agreed to vote two additional members onto the Board: You (a legally astute colleague of Joe’s) and Fransted (one of Nathan’s former college professors). Fransted is given 2,000 shares of stock in GSG for her efforts. You are appointed Chairperson of the Board and are also awarded 5,000 shares of stock. Gunson Street Games, Corp. began its corporate life with 60,000 shares of common stock divided as follows: Initial Shareholder Number of Shares Joe Martin 15,000 Olivia Nomikos 15,000 Nathan Diaz 20,000 You 5,000 Fransted 2,000 GSG, Corp. retained 3,000 shares for future distribution. Per the bylaws, all holders of stock were entitled to vote at shareholder meetings You, Joe, Nathan, Olivia, and Fransted, acting as the Board of Directors, appoint executive officers to run the corporation. The Board appointed Joe as the Treasurer, Olivia as the President, and Nathan as the Secretary. The Board ratified and signed the bylaws previously drafted by Joe, Olivia, and Nathan. Please find the GSG, Corp. bylaws attached to this assignment. Year One: The business operated successfully during its first fiscal year, from July 17, 2020 to June 30, 2021. After expenses, the business netted $250,000 in profits. At the annual meeting held in July 2021, the Board unanimously voted not to declare dividends for its shareholders, but rather to reinvest its profits into growing the business. The quintet, in their capacity as shareholders, re-elected themselves to serve on the Board of Directors for the next business year. Year Two: During its second year and with the introduction of an incredibly popular game, Big Sky or Bust, GSG was twice as successful and generated a net profit of $400,000. At the annual meeting held in July 2022, the Board unanimously voted not to declare dividends for its shareholders. In their capacity as shareholders, GSG, Corp. participants re-elected themselves to serve on the Board of Directors for the next business year. Several months after the Board Meeting and without any special permission or consent, Joe signed a lease agreement with Laker Properties, Inc., for a large industrial space in Big Rapids, Michigan. GSG moved to its new location and commenced its third year of business. Year Three: At the conclusion of year three, the board game industry was booming. After expenses, GSG netted $570,000 in profits. At the annual meeting in July 2023, the decision to declare dividends was hotly contested. Nathan and Fransted believed GSG should reinvest its profits into further product development and voted accordingly. You, Joe and Olivia believed it was time to declare dividends and pay investors and voted consistently with your feelings. Additionally, the Board voted unanimously to authorize compensation for GSG Officers at $10,000 each. In their capacity as shareholders, GSG, Corp. participants re-elected themselves to serve on the Board of Directors for the next business year. Year Four: Time flew. At the conclusion of year four, business remained steady but competitors entering the board game market caused profits to plateau. Additionally, GSG began to experience problems with the quality of materials provided by one of its suppliers. Specifically, the quality of resin components shipped by GSG’s then-supplier diminished over the course of the last fiscal year and the supplier has been unresponsive to Olivia’s expressions of concern. At the annual meeting held in July of 2024, Board members discussed and unanimously agreed that once the contract with the resin components supplier expired, GSG would contract for the services of another supplier. Joe proposed the possibility of purchasing an existing company outright and bringing it in-house. Although no vote on the issue took place, the Board discussed the idea and agreed to explore opportunities to establish a contractual relationship with a new resin components supplier. The Board voted unanimously to declare cash dividends. In their capacity as shareholders, GSG, Corp. participants re-elected themselves to serve on the Board of Directors for the next business year. Year Five: On October 26, 2024, the week before the expiration of the contract with the resin components supplier, Nathan called a special meeting of the GSG Board of Directors. The meeting was held October 27, 2024 and four of the five members of the Board attended – Olivia was absent. At the meeting, Nathan proposed entering into a contract with Wilmington Widgets, LLC, a small but promising start-up supplier of the type of resin components needed by GSG, for provision of materials. Nathan presented information regarding Wilmington Widgets, LLC prices and terms but was unable, when asked by Joe, to produce information about the prices and terms of other competitors in the resin components market. Nathan called for a vote. Joe and Fransted deferred to Nathan’s expertise and voted in favor of the agreement with Wilmington Widgets, LLC. Nathan voted in favor of the agreement. You were concerned by the lack of additional information and alternatives. You expressed reluctance to enter into an agreement with Wilmington Widgets, LLC. You voted against Nathan’s proposal and articulated your dissent to Nathan. Subsequently, GSG entered into a contract by which Wilmington Widgets, LLC became the exclusive supplier of resin components to GSG for three years. Business remained steady through December of 2024. In early January of 2025, GSG received a complaint indicating that a customer sustained severe rashes following her purchase and handling of the resin components included in GSG’s most popular game, Big Sky or Bust. The customer provided a report from her physician indicating her injuries were caused by the toxic chemicals used in the resin component manufacturing process. Joe immediately commenced an internal investigation. The customer's name is Harley Patterson. You received an alarming email from Joe in early mid-January of 2025. Not only did Joe discover that more than 10,000 games sold by GSG may include toxic resin components traced to Wilmington Widgets, LLC, but that there is much more to the story. Joe informed you that Nathan, during August of 2024, invested a substantial amount of his personal funds into Wilmington Widgets, becoming an owner with an 85% membership interest in the company. Because of his ownership interest in Wilmington Widgets, Nathan profited significantly from Wilmington Widgets’ three-year deal with GSG. At no time prior to Joe’s discovery was Nathan’s ownership in Wilmington Widgets disclosed by Nathan nor any other Wilmington Widgets representative. Joe believes Nathan became aware of Wilmington Widgets’ products while attending a National Board Game Association convention on behalf of GSG in the early spring of 2024. Joe believes Nathan has capitalized on an opportunity for himself rather than furthering the interests of GSG. Because of your experience with legal dilemmas, Joe seeks your input on some concerns he has regarding the operation of Gunson Street Games, Corp. Joe asks that you summarize, from your position, answers to the following inquiries in the form of a memo to Joe. After its first fiscal year, including corporate compensation and dividends, how much money did Nathan make? How much did You make? As part of your answer, include a page number(s) reference to related content covered in MLE and/or section and subsection citations to the Corporate Bylaws. After its third fiscal year, including corporate compensation and dividends, how much money did Nathan make? How much did You make? As part of your answer, include a page number(s) reference to related content covered in MLE and/or section and subsection citations to the Corporate Bylaws. Did Joe have authority to enter into the lease agreement for the larger facility on behalf of GSG? What is/are the source(s) of this authority? As part of your answer, include a page number(s) reference to related content covered in MLE and/or section and subsection citations to the Corporate Bylaws. Had Nathan, instead of Joe, entered into the lease agreement for the larger facility on behalf of GSG, would he have had authority to do so? As part of your answer, include a page number(s) reference to related content covered in MLE and/or section and subsection citations to the Corporate Bylaws. If at the end of year four, GSG netted another $570,000 in profits, how much would each shareholder receive? As part of your answer, include a page number(s) reference to related content covered in MLE and/or section and subsection citations to the Corporate Bylaws. In proposing the deal with Wilmington Widgets, did Nathan violate any of his obligations to GSG? What is/are the source(s) of the obligation(s)? In approving the deal with Wilmington Widgets, did Joe violate his obligations to GSG? What is/are the source(s) of the obligation(s)? As part of your answer, include a page number(s) reference to related content covered in MLE and/or section and subsection citations to the Corporate Bylaws. Joe wishes to convene a shareholder meeting for the removal of Nathan from the Board of Directors. What type of notice provisions are required? Indicate the specific shareholders who must attend in order to vote Nathan off the Board? Indicate the specific shareholders must Joe persuade to successfully vote Nathan off the Board? As part of your answer, include a page number(s) reference to related content covered in MLE and/or section and subsection citations to the Corporate Bylaws. Joe has reason to believe that since August of 2023, Nathan has failed to operate and manage Wilmington Widgets Specifically, Joe believes Nathan used Wilmington’s corporate funds to pay for a lavish personal vacation and a brand-new BMW M2 he gave to his mother. If the injured customer files a lawsuit against Wilmington Widgets, is Nathan shielded from personal liability? Why or why not? As part of your answer, include a page number(s) reference to related content covered in MLE and/or section and subsection citations to the Corporate Bylaws. Joe is concerned that once Nathan hears about Joe’s allegations, Nathan will sell all his stock to the highest bidder leaving the remaining shareholders stuck in business with someone unknown. Are there any protections against this happening? As part of your answer, include a page number(s) reference to related content covered in MLE and/or section and subsection citations to the Corporate Bylaws. How do you think Joe should proceed with this matter? As part of your response, be sure to consult the facts outlined above, MLE’s Chapters 5, 19 and 20 and the attached Gunson Street Games, Corp. bylaws. For formatting purposes, please use a ‘memo’ template recommended by your word processing program. Your memorandum should be directed to Joe and include approximately 1,500 words which equates to roughly three pages, single-spaced, twelve-point font. Your memorandum, like any documents directed to professional colleagues, should be professionally written, and be free of spelling, grammatical, and typographical errors.