BA260 Business Law - 39982

Solution Detail
Price: $50.00
  • From: Business,
  • Posted on: Mon 30 Dec, 2013
  • Request id: None
  • Purchased: 2 time(s)
  • Average Rating: No rating
Request Description




Hello Class! For this discussion you can choose which question you respond to.  Feel free to respond to both, however only one is required. Please respond to one of the following questions:




Question A


Tell us about yourself so you can meet and greet other fellow Grantham University students within your course. Include what you believe to be your current knowledge level of this course topic and what you hope to learn before the course is over.


Question B


Define and distinguish Common Law and Civil Law?  Which system of law is best suited for a global economy?  Please respond to the posts of at least two of your fellow classmates.




W2 Discussion "Business and the Bill of Rights"


Consider the protections granted under the Bill of Rights. These protections afforded to individuals often extend to corporations since corporations enjoy many of the same rights and privileges as a natural person does. As a business, which Amendment would you consider to be the most important? Why is this important to you? How about as an individual, which Amendment is most important to you? Why is this amendment important to you?


W3 Discussion "Trademarks and Dilution"


Provide an example of an existing trademark. What makes this trademark strong? What makes it weak? What is trademark dilution? Is this trademark at risk for dilution?


W4 Discussion "Who Owns the Engagement Ring?"


Business Law I


Who Owns the Engagement Ring?


Often, when a couple decides to marry, one party gives the other an engagement ring.  If the engagement is called off, typically the ring is returned.  Yet what if the recipient of the ring refuses to return it and a dispute over who owns the ring reaches a court?  What law should apply in determining ownership rights in this particular form of personal property?  In the eyes of the law, is an engagement ring a “conditional gift” that becomes effective only when the couple actually marries?  Or is it an effective gift to begin with, meaning that it belongs to the person to whom it was given—the donee?  Furthermore, does ownership of the ring depend on who breaks the engagement?  On these questions, the courts are widely divided. Where do you stand on this issue? Please explain your thoughts.


W5 Discussion "Is a Video Will a Valid Will?"




W6 Discussion "Which Form Of Business Is Better?"




Jonathan, Gary, and Ricardo are active members of a partnership called Swim City. The partnership manufactures, sells, and installs outdoor swimming pools in the states of Texas and Arkansas. The partners want to continue to be active in management and to expand the business into other states as well. They also are concerned about rather large recent judgments entered against swimming pool companies throughout the United States. Based on these facts only, discuss whether the partnership should incorporate.


W7 Discussion "Offer and Acceptance"


For this discussion forum, please read about the case Lim v. The.TV Corporation International below and respond to the following:


Should the UCC rules governing auctions apply to items sold on online auctions such as e-Bay? Why or why not?


Lim v. The.TV Corp. International, 99 Cal.App.4th 684, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 333 (2d Dist. 2002).


Under the Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC (see Chapter 18), a bid at an auction constitutes an offer.  The offer (the highest bid) is accepted when the auctioneer’s hammer falls.   The UCC also states that auctions are “with reserve” unless the seller specifies otherwise.  As noted elsewhere, in an auction with reserve, the seller reserves the right not to sell the goods to the highest bidder.  Hence, even after the hammer falls, the contract for sale remains conditioned on the seller’s approval.  The question of how these rules should be applied to an online auction of a domain name, in which no hammer falls, came before a California court.


The Bid (Or Offer?)


The case involved an online auction conducted by The.TV Corporation International (DotTV) on its Web site.  DotTV posted an announcement on its Web site asking for bids for rights to the “” domain name and stating that the name would go to the highest bidder.  Je Ho Lim submitted a bid for $1,010 and authorized DotTV to charge that amount to his credit card if his bid was the highest.  Later, DotTV sent Lim an e-mail message stating that he had “won the auction” and charged the bid price of $1,010 to Lim’s credit card.  When DotTV subsequently refused to transfer the name, Lim sued DotTV for, among other things, breach of contract.  Lim argued that his bid constituted an ac¬ceptance of DotTV’s offer to sell the name.  DotTV contended that Lim’s bid was an offer, which it had not accepted.  Furthermore, even if it had accepted Lim’s offer, because the auction was “with re¬serve,” DotTV could withdraw the domain name from the auction even after acceptance. The trial court held for DotTV, and Lim appealed.


The Courts Analysis


The appellate court first looked at the UCC’s provisions concerning auctions, but noted that the UCC did not apply in this case because the UCC applies only to “goods,” and domain names are not goods.  The court then looked at common law principles as codified in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts.  The rules under the Restatement are similar to those of the UCC: a bid in an auction is an offer that is accepted when the “hammer falls,” and an auction is with reserve unless otherwise speci-fied by the seller.


The court also pointed out, however, that DotTV’s charging of the bid price to Lim’s credit card was inconsistent with DotTV’s claim that it could withdraw the domain name from the bidding be¬cause the auction was with reserve.  Furthermore, stated the court, even if it concluded that Lim’s bid was an offer and not an acceptance, DotTV had accepted the offer by its e-mail to Lim stating that he had won the auction.  In all, held the court, there was no evidence that a contract between DotTV and Lim had not been formed, and Lim had stated a valid claim against DotTV for breach of contract.  The court thus reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for further delib¬eration consistent with the appellate court’s opinion.


W8 Discussion "Review and Reflection"


Reflecting back on the last 8 weeks, what are three important concepts or rules you have learned as a result of this class? Why are these important to you?

W2-7 Quiz

W2 Business Crimes

W3 Business Torts

W4 Assignment Deeds

W5 Landlord Liability

W6 Breach of Duty

W7 Consideration

Final Exam


Solution Description




Hello Class! For this discussion you can choose which question you respond to.  Feel free to respond to both, however only one is required. Please respond to one of the following questions:




BA260 Business Law Entire
BA260 Business ...