BUS846

Question:

Please provide an argumentative writing to discuss : Would discriminate against an employee because of their sexual orientation constitutes the prohibited discrimination ‘because of sex’ in employment within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in 1)Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, 2)R&G & G&R. Harris Funeral Home, Inc. v. EEOC, and 3)Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda.?

1. Would discriminate against sexual orientation constitutes the prohibited discrimination ‘because of sex’ within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? (please provide legal definition)
2. what are the similarities in these 3 cases?
3. What are the differences in these 3 cases?
4. is there any state law protecting the employee in their own state?
5. what are the ramifications depending what the supreme court rulings are?

Question:

Murugam had entered into an agreement to buy a car by installment from Tong Motors. He received a loan from Mei Bank. Unfortunately, he had defaulted payment for two consecutive months. Mei Bank sent a notice of repossession to Murugam on 1st February 2020. On 19th February 2020, Mei Bank sent an agent to repossess the said car. He wishes to challenge the validity the repossession made by Mei Bank’s agent. In addition to that, Murugam has received an offer letter to study in Australia for two years. He wonders if he can assign his rights under the Hire Purchase Agreement to his father or whether he has the right to terminate the said agreement before leaving for his study abroad. Advise him.

Can you help me to answer this question?

Question:

Ether and Saint bought a vacant land in the outskirts of the Island of Viti. The land is surrounded by pristine beaches and tranquility. Ether and Saint want to build an apartment on the land. In due course, they intend to occupy one flat and rent out the other flats. Saint had also promised Ether that he would do a swimming pool and gym for her. Ether and Saint spoke with few contractors, and eventually engaged the services of PP Constructions Limited to construct their apartment. PP contractors assured Ether and Saint that all constructions works would be carried out according to the specifications/instructions provided by them. PP contractors further assured Ether and Saint that PP contractors would personally carry out all works relating to the construction of their dream apartment. Ether and Saint are thrilled. Ether and Saint and the contractors agree on the following terms:  That the construction would begin on 10 February 2020.  that the construction work would be completed within a reasonable timeframe.  that the total contract sum would be $950,000.  that the contract sum would be paid to the contractors by Ether and Saint in 8 different stages, based on the amount of work completed. The contract further stated that payments would only be made if the work is completed as per the specifications provided.  that an initial payment of $250,000 would be made prior to commencement of work, and  Construction is to commence as soon as the initial payment of $250,000 is made to the contractors. PP Constructions Limited received the initial sum of $250,000 on 09/02/20, however due to bad weather they could not commence work until 27/02/20. PP Constructions Limited feels that the contract sum of $950,000 is not sufficient anymore and wants more money from Ether and Saint. Contrary to the agreement, PP Construction Limited subcontracted some foundation works to a one MK Contractors and his team. Upon half completion of the foundation works PP Construction Limited approached the Ether and Saint for further payment, being the second instalment. Before making any further payment the couple insisted on inspecting the completed works, to ensure that work was done according to the specifications. The couple went for inspection on 08/04/20. They were appalled to see that the foundation work had not been fully completed. In addition to this they are not happy about how the foundation had been laid. The layering of the foundation seem to have been rushed and irons which were mounted look defective. The poles were not mounted according to the specifications provided. The foundation layer was not properly filled in, and it had huge gaps, and this was contrary to the instructions provided to PP Constructions Limited. Ether and Saint are very frustrated and they terminate the services of PP Construction Limited. Ether and Saint want their $250,000 back. They allege that PP Construction Limited breached the terms of the contract. PP Construction Limited insist that they would not return the $250,000 and further demand$100,000 for the half completed foundation works. MK Contractors and his team are yet to be paid $30,000 and they are demanding their money too.

Required

Ether and saint seek your advice, write a memorandum of advice addressing all relevant issues. Your advice must consider relevant elements of contract law, cases, remedies and defences. Your answer must demonstrate evidence of research

Question:

Maura Blake, a single mother, claims that her dismissal from employment is the fault of a daycare centre called Totspace. Eighteen months ago, Maura enrolled Harold (then nine) and Linus (then six) in a Totspace daycare program that included day trips on PA days to local attractions. Linus has severe behavioural problems that still have not been fully diagnosed. When confronted with new situations and new people, he often has violent tantrums. The Totspace staff had mentioned on four separate occasions that caring for Linus on day trips was a challenge for staff and raised safety concerns. Maura’s response was that Totspace needed to be prepared to deal with all children, not just easy children. She also suggested that if Linus began to act out, he be allowed to join his brother’s group, although he did not meet the age requirements.

On August 11, Totspace took the children, including Harold and Linus, on a day trip to the Toronto Zoo. Near the end of the outing, Linus was getting tired and began acting out. His counsellor, Ken Andrews, tried to get him under control. Linus went into a tantrum, throwing himself down on the grass, screaming, and beating the ground with his fists and feet. Ken, who had eight other children in his group to care for, thought he saw Lynn Gordon with her group of children, which included Harold, standing under some trees nearby. Ken picked up Linus, held him still and pointed the group under the trees out to him. He said, “Look, there’s your brother! Go over to his group and talk to him. Tell Lynn I said it was OK.”

Linus took off towards the group under the trees at a run.

On the ferry back to the Toronto docks, Ken asked Lynn if Linus was OK. Lynn told him that she had not seen Linus, nor had she been anywhere near the location where Linus had thrown the tantrum. Ken and some other Totspace staff searched all decks of the ferry, and did a roll call upon disembarking at the docks. It seemed that Linus had been left behind on the island.

A counsellor immediately took the next ferry back over to the island, and located Linus. He had been alone for over two hours and was hysterical. His mother, who had phoned the daycare before he was discovered, was also hysterical.

Maura withdrew Harold and Linus from Totspace immediately after this incident. Her then employer was understanding of her situation and allowed her to stay home from work on PA days.

At around this time, Maura began have nightmares about losing Linus and not being able to find him. She also began having panic attacks.

In October of the following year, Maura’s boss was transferred to another office. Her new boss would not allow her to take PA days off if she was needed in the office. This put Maura under even more stress. She began leaving work early without permission and taking extra sick days. Her productivity dropped. She received several warnings, and in February she was dismissed for cause.

Maura has commenced a civil action in negligence against Totspace and Ken Andrews. She is claiming damages for mental illness (anxiety disorder) and for lost income due to her job loss. She has a physician’s report supporting her claim. Totspace has contacted another physician, who will be its witness at trial and will give evidence that it is common for parents of children with severe behavioural problems to suffer from depression, anxiety, and panic attacks. It is especially common if they are single parents.

a) Applying the relevant and correct principle(s) of law discuss the following questions:

Did Totspace owe Linus a duty of care?

Did Ken Andrews owe Linus a duty of care?

Did either or both of them owe Maura a duty of care?  (4 marks)

b) If yes to (a), applying the relevant principles of law explain and advice Maura what she must establish for a successful action in court. (6 marks)

Question:

Whar are 10 ACTION ITEM IN FITNESS INSTRUCTOR IN  informal meeting?

Question:

Mr. Wahid is a single, wealthy man. He has lots of properties, luxury cars and jewelleries that is worth RM2.8 billion. One day, he met with an accident and was bedridden. A therapist named Wahida was taken care Mr. Wahid.

During her employment with Mr. Wahid, Wahida managed to convince Mr Wahid to sell 3 cars and 2 houses below market value and she kept a few hundred thousand for herself.

On the 6th year, Mr Wahid recovered from his illness. Mr. Wahid was so surprised to notice that he had lost RM20 million for the selling off his assets by Wahida.

In the meantime, Mr Wakaka requested Ali, his very good friend to find a buyer for one of his apartments for RM1.8 million. He trusted Ali and passed the original Grant of Title to Ali. After 3 months, he found out that the apartment was sold to a third party without his knowledge.

Please advise Mr. Wahid on his cases.