Law : Business Law

Background Facts You Need to Know:  At Winnie’s and Ralph’s request, it is your

Background Facts You Need to Know:  At Winnie’s and Ralph’s request, it is your responsibility to research and provide answers to the Clean owners’ questions. As an example, Winnie, Ralph, the Clean owners, and you have determined that Clean’s contract with its cleaner- employees will include the following terms and conditions:
•    specific duties to be performed by cleaner-employee
•    salary for cleaner-employee
•    work hours
•    terms of payment for overtime or holiday work, if any
•    sick leave
•    vacation leave
•    training requirements for cleaner-employee
•    length of contract
•    bonding for cleaner-employee
•    periodic performance evaluation and how it will be conducted
•    termination of the contract, i.e., a notice of termination, etc.
Report You Need to Prepare:  To begin developing a contract between Clean and its cleaning clients, prepare a report that addresses the following (note that this is for a contract with Cleans clients and not Clean’s employees).
1.  Identify five contract terms and conditions – other than price – that should be included in the Clean contract with its cleaning clients. 
2.  Analyze and briefly discuss why each term is essential to include in a Clean-client cleaning contract.
Tips for Formatting Report: The report should use the following format
TO:              Winnie James, Ralph Anders
FROM:        (your name)
RE:              Terms of Contracts With Clients

Contract Terms and Conditions

Law : Business Law

What is the difference between the implied warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose?

Background/Facts: The group plans to purchase PPE and cleaning supplies from Environmental Pro, Inc. (EPI), a mid-sized manufacturer incorporated in a nearby state, that produces chemical-free, environmentally-friendly cleaning products.  The four are familiar with the corporation as each has purchased EPI products for their respective current businesses.  The four friends intend to resell certain EPI products directly to Clean clients.  The Clean group plans to market and advertise its services and resell EPI products through print, television, radio, internet, and social media.  During a monthly Lunch and Learn Seminar at TLG offices, all TLG business consultants are discussing various client cases.  During the discussion of Clean’s new business, the group discusses the following questions:
(1) What is the difference between the implied warranty of merchantability and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose?
(2) Analyze and explain specifically how and why Clean could be sued for breach of implied warranty of merchantability for using EPI cleaning products to clean Clean’s clients’ commercial property. `

Law : Business Law

Is it ethical for vaccine manufacturers to be absolved from liability by federal law?

4.5 Commerce Clause State departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) register automobiles and issue driver’s licenses. State DMVs require automobile owners and drivers to provide per sonal information-including a person’s name, address, telephone number, vehicle description, Social Security number, medical information, and a photograph—as a condition for registering an automobile or obtaining a driver’s license. Many states’ DMVs sold this personal information to individuals, advertis ers, and businesses. These sales generated sig nificant revenues for the states.
After receiving thousands of complaints from individuals whose personal information had been sold, the U.S. Congress enacted the Dri ver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA). This federal statute prohibits a state from selling the personal information of a person unless the state obtains that person’s affirmative consent to do so. South Carolina sued the United States, alleging that the federal government violated the Commerce Clause by adopting the DPPA. Was the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act properly enacted by the federal government pursuant to its Commerce Clause power? Reno, Attorney General of the United States v. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, 528 U.S. 141, 120 S.Ct. 666, 2000 U.S. Lexis 503 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2000)
4.7 Ethics Case Vaccines are biological prepa rations usually containing an agent that re sembles a disease-causing microorganism, which is often administered by needle and which improves immunity to a particular dis ease. Vaccines are subject to federal premarket approval of the federal Food and Drug Admin istration (FDA). The elimination of communi cable diseases through vaccination was one of the greatest achievements of public health in the twentieth century. However, harm caused by side effects to some individuals led to a massive increase in vaccine-related tort litiga tion against the manufacturers of vaccines. One group of manufacturers that was subject to such lawsuits was those who made the vac cine against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (DTP). Because of the lawsuits, two of the three domestic manufacturers of DTP with drew from the market. In response, the U.S. Congress enacted the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA). One of the provisions of the act stated,
No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associ ated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
When Hanna Bruesewitz was one year old, her pediatrician administered doses of DTP vaccine that was manufactured by Lederle Laboratories (later purchased by Wyeth LLC). Hanna immediately started to experience seizures, and has suffered seizures since being vaccinated. Hanna’s parents filed a lawsuit against Lederle alleging that the company was liable for strict liability and negligent design of the vaccine. The U.S. district court granted Wyeth summary judgment, holding that Brue sewitz’s causes of action were preempted by the NCVIA. The U.S. court of appeals affirmed the judgment. Bruesewitz appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Does the preemption provi sion in the federal NCVIA bar state law de sign-defect product liability claims against vac cine manufacturers? Is it ethical for vaccine manufacturers to be absolved from liability by federal law? What is the public policy underlying the federal law? Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, 131 S.Ct. 1068, 2011 U.S. Lexis 1085 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2011)