1. Name: Lisa Cason
Date: July 8, 2012
Course# BSAD220-F1FF
Assignment 2-2
Professor Elaine Silveira

2. Assignment 2-2
#9
The parties involved in this case were Michael Merkle-plaintiff T-Mobile USA, Inc.-defendant
The facts were Michael Merkle allegedly was seen drunk at a company conference, which he denied
the allegation. However, the senior human resource manager informed him of the allegation, and
immediately fired him.
The legal issues between the two parties are Michael was given the company handbook which internally
investigates all claims of employee misconduct. Although he claimed no internal investigation had been
conducted. Michael stated there was an employee that actually was drunk on the job site. T- Mobile
contended that no portion of the handbook constituted a contract.
I feel if there was no for sure proof that Michael was drunk, if they’re going on just hear say, Michael
may have a good case against them. Since he has worked there for 11 years, and not for sure, a
warning, or maybe a few days suspension may have been sufficient. “Innocent until proven guilty”
The appropriate rule of law I think would be natural law because it states that people have a right to be
treated fairly in their jobs. If it wasn’t proven , he may have a case. If they would’ve took a breath test
or drug test and it was proven on the spot, that would be a different scenario.Dynamic Business Law,
Second Edition
Chapter 14 (6-7)
The parties involved were Makoroff-plaintiff PennDot-defendant
The facts were PennDot issued a request proposal for vending machine services, and selected ATI for
a contract. ATI returned an executed contract to PennDot. PennDot’s never returned a contract to ATI.
The legal issues are PennDot never returned a executed contract to ATI or to provide notice to proceed.
PennDot notified ATI that it was not a responsible contractor.
I think ATI should win the case because PennDot never delivered an acceptance to the offer to ATI,
therefore a contract was not formed.
I feel the appropriate rule of law would be business law which consists of the enforceable ruled of

3. conduct that govern commercial relationships.Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition
#7
The parties involved were Business Systems Engineering-Plaintiff –IBM-Defendant
The facts were Business Systems Engineering had subcontracted with IBM to provide technical
consultants. IBM listed Business System Engineering as a subcontractor with $3.6 million under
contract amount. At the end of the project IBM paid $2.2 million instead of the original price of
$3.6 million to Business System Engineering.
The legal issues would be IBM agreed to a price of $3.6 million, but only paid $2.2 million to
Business Systems Engineering.
I feel if IBM promised the $3.6 million it should’ve been paid, providing the work was done in a timely
manner, and the work was done the right way.
The appropriate rule of law would be Business Law because it consists of the enforceable rules of
conduct that govern commercial relationships
I feel the plaintiffs argument on appeal was he had a contract with IBM for $3.6 million. However when
the work was done he was handed only $2.2 million. I feel if Business Systems Engineering had a
contract with IBM, it should’ve been fulfilled. There were only 38 work authorizations issued to the
plaintiff, so I’m not sure if it should’ve been more authorizations issued or not, it didn’t actually say.
I’m thinking he got paid for the authorizations that were turned in. That’s why they got $2.2 million.
I feel the outcome of the appeal was evidently the job wasn’t done the right way and IBM wasn’t
happy at all with the job performed. The transit authority could’ve rejected some of the individuals
who were not selected by the subcontractors. However, the money paid could’ve been the number
of authorizations that were issued.Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition

4. Chapter 15 #8--#9
#8
The parties involved were Zhang—plaintiff --- Frank Sorichetti’s-defendant
The facts were Zhang entered into a contract to purchase a home from Frank Sorichetti for $532,500
on February 1, 2004. February 3, 2004 Sorichetti terminated the sale to stay a little while longer.
Therefore, he made a different price of $ 578,000 which included a few household furnishings.
The legal issues are if the contract is legal, and if Nevada law allows the recession of real property
agreements within the three days of signing.
I feel that if the Nevada laws allows purchase agreements within three days, then I would feel
Sorichetti would win. However, the first contract was made on the 1st, then a change of mind on the
3rd. If a real property purchase agreement is enforced and that is allowed, I think Sorichetti wins
the case, if not Zhang would win if the agreements in not allowed.
The appropriate rule of law would be natural law because individuals have not only basic human rights,
but also the freedom to disobey a law enacted by people if their conscience goes against it and they
believe that it is wrong.
I feel if the Nevada law allows purchase agreements three days of contracting, and a real property
purchase agreement is enforced when executed by the buyer, I feel the second contract should be
enforced by the court. The first contract didn’t have all the personal belongings and all the household
furnishings on it. The second contract had all the personal items and the new price that was agreed on.
#9Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition
The parties involved were Vincent Simmons—plaintiff Dorothy Simmons—defendant
The facts were upon Vincent Simmons’ mother’s death she would leave the land in Florida to her
children, Vincent and his sister. The mother died a few years later and the land remained in trust for
several years after. Dorothy, Vincent’s wife was concerned she would not receive an interest so she

5. hired an attorney to prepare a document to protect her interest.
The legal issues are that Vincent stated that is case of his death his wife Dorothy would receive his
share. However, Dorothy, his wife, filed for a divorce and Vincent felt that there was a lack of
consideration to support a contract. Dorothy argued that her marriage to Vincent had enough
consideration to support the contract
I feel Vincent should win the because he stated that in the event of his death, that his wife, Dorothy
would receive his share of property. Nonetheless, Vincent didn’t die, his wife filed for divorce.
Therefore, the property should remain with Vincent and his sister until further notice.
The appropriate rule of law would be civil law. Civil law states the rights and responsibilities in
relationships between persons. It also states when someone’s right are violated.Dynamic Business Law
Second Edition
Chapter 16 #7
The parties involved were Bannister—plaintiff Bemis Co., Inc. –defendant
The facts were Roger Bannister was not to work for Bemis 18 months after the termination of his
Employment. Bemis was suppose to pay his salary if employment was not found in a timely manner.
Bannister had an offer from Mondi to be hired if not to compete. Bemis responded to Bannister that
They disapproved him working for Mondi.
The legal issues are Bannister agreed not to compete and Bemis was to pay his monthly salary.
Bemis then said Bannister could compete just not with Mondi due to a separate agreement Bemis
had with Mondi. Bannister finally accepted an offer with another employer and expected to get
paid for the nine months he was out of work from Bemis. Bemis didn’t want to pay Bannister.
I feel Bannister should win the case. He was out of work for a long period of time without pay. He
was going to be hired by Mondi. Bemis had some issues with Mondi but that had nothing to do
with Bannister. He was trying to get paid. Bannister ended up excepting a job that was a competitor
of Bemis.
The appropriate rule of law would be Civil Law because it delineates the rights and responsibilities of

6. relationships between persons and their government. It also identifies when someone’s right are
violated. I feel his rights were violated because he waited so long to get paid, and still didn’t.Dynamic
Business Law Second Edition
Chapter 17 # 6-7
The parties involved were Estate of Martha Nelson—plaintiff -- Carl Rice and Anna Rice—defendant
The facts were defendant bought a painting from plaintiff. Plaintiff stated she at the beginning she was
no judge of fine art, and would probably have to get another appraiser. Defendant bought paintings
for little of nothing, not knowing if they would be the originals. He then got the painting appraised
and found out that they were worth a lot more than he bought them for, and they were the originals.
The legal issues are after selling the paintings for a very, very, cheap price the estate wanted to sue
the buyer for buying the paintings for such a cheap price. A mistake or not he bought it for the price
the appraise told him they were worth. I feel that was their mistake, they need to fix it, not the guy
who bought the paintings. If he would’ve stole the paintings, that would be a different story. However,
he didn’t, he bought it fair .
I feel the plaintiff should win the case because it was a price offered, and he ran with it not knowing if
this time it was an original painting or not. If you are an appraiser of fine arts, and trying to sell
paintings, or whatever you’re trying to sell, you need to know what you’re are doing, so there is
no problem like this that will occur again.
The appropriate rule of law I feel is Private law because private law regulates disputes between private
individuals or groups.Dynamic Business Law. Second Edition
#7
The parties involved are Okes—plaintiff -----Arthur Murray—defendant
The facts were Okes, which was 51 years old signed up for dance classes and consequently she
received praise. However, it was not honest praise. After being offered eight half-hour dance lessons
for $14.50 each to be used each month, she immediately purchased a total of 2,302 hours which
was a total of $31,090.45.

7. The legal issues were after Vokes figured out she was actually played for a fool and realized she
wasn’t developing her dance skills, couldn’t even hear the music, she then wanted to sue
Arthur Murray.
I think Arthur Murray should win the case. True, they weren’t very honest to the lady, but it’s
a whole lot of people who are not honest these days. That’s why you have to watch the people
that we deal with in our everyday life. Nonetheless , nobody twisted her arm to purchase so many
hours of dance lessons. So I feel even though they were very rude, and lied, she has to deal with
the situation she got herself in.
The appropriate rule of law is natural law because natural law describes certain ethical laws and
principles to be morally right or wrong. I feel what they did was wrong, but unfortunately, it is not
against the law.DYNAMIC BUSINESS LAW, Second Edition

8. References: Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition

9. Module 2 Assignment 2-2 Chapter Questions & Problems
Chapter 13 #7
What is the plain meaning rule? The plain meaning rule requires that if a writing, or a term in
question , appears to be plain and ambiguous, its meaning must be determined from the
instrument itself, with the words given their ordinary meaning.”Dynamic Business Law,Second Edition
Chapter 14 #2
What is the mailbox rule? The mailbox rule provides that an acceptance is valid when the offeree
places it in the mailbox, whereas a revocation is effective only when the offeree receives it. The
mailbox rule is not applicable when there is instantaneous communication, such as over the phone
in person, or be telex. “Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition “
#5 Were there an offer and an acceptance thereby creating an enforceable contract?
I believe there was an offer of acceptance that created an enforceable contract because Wilbert
Heikkila was the one who should’ve signed the other three agreements, not his wife. However,
Wilbert Heikkila changed the price on the parcels by writing on the purchase agreements. He also
altered the closing dates for each parcel, which I feel is illegal. Therefore, that itself created an
enforceable contract. Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition
Chapter 15 # 4
List and describe the three exceptions to the preexisting duty rule—
1. Unforeseen circumstances which causes a party to make a promise regarding an unfinished
project, the promise is valid consideration.
2. Additional work is when a party agrees to do more that the contract requires, the promise
To do it is valid consideration.
3. UCC Article 2 is a signed agreement which excludes modification or rescission except by a
signed writing cannot be otherwise modified or rescinded, but except as between merchants
such a requirement on a form supplied by the merchant t must be separately signed by
the other party. Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition
#10 How do you think the court ruled? I feel if there was no legal contract that was signed , and AEP
didn’t pay there $1.00, the court would rule against AEP.

10. Chapter#16--#9
Do you feel the appellate court upheld the motion for summary judgment? I don’t feel the court
upheld the motion because when she signed the contract, it stated that they were not responsible
for injuries during exercise. She discussed her problems with NFI, and took it upon herself to continue
Therefore, I don’t feel NFI was responsible for injuries that occurred.
Chapter 17 #5
Explain the difference between duress and undu influence. Duress occurs when one party threatens
the other with a wrongful act unless assent is given. Such assent is not legal assent because coercion
interferes with the party’s free will. For the courts to rescind the agreement, the injured party must
demonstrate that the duress left no reasonable alternatives to agreeing to the contract “ Dynamic
Business Law, Second Edition”
Undu influence is the persuasive efforts of a dominant party who uses a special relationship with
another party to interfere with the other’s free choice of the terms of a contract. Any relationship
in which one party has an unusual degree of trust in the other can trigger concern about undue
influence. “ Dynamic Business Law, Second Edition”