5580137 Assignment
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Chamberlain College of Nursing *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1510
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by DeaconMusicQuail4
1
Assignment
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Instructors' Name
Due date
2
Assignment
1.
In the case of Ryan Coogler v. Ripoff, the court may determine Ripoff as responsible for copyright infringement. Ripoff's White Panther parties imitate the characters and costumes from the Black Panther film, which is protected by copyright law. On the other hand, Ripoff can argue that he did not plan on violating Coogler's copyright since he had just hosted White Panther-
themed parties. Moreover, he did not significantly gain from the parties since the fee was used to cover expenses, and the extra was awarded to the guest with the best costume.
In the case of Ryan Coogler v. Sleazy, the court might rule against Sleazy and in favor of Ryan Coogler. The club's use of costumes similar to those in the movie violates copyright law. On the other hand, Sleazy may argue that they are not liable for copyright infringement since the costumes used in the club are not exact replica of the ones in the movie. Sleazy may also argue that he thought he was simply capitalizing on a popular trend and that the club's success was not solely a result of the costumes.
2.
In the matter of Peeper v. Lady Panther, the court may rule in favor of Peeper and award him damages of $5000 since he had a contract with Jazzmine, who was acting as Lady Panther's agent. Peeper was not aware that Sleazy did not authorize the costume purchase. Therefore, he delivered his end of the agreement by providing the agreed costumes. Moreover, Lady Panther benefitted since the outfits were given to and worn by the club’s workers.
On the other hand, Lady Panther may argue that Sleazy did not authorize Jazzmine to make the purchase, meaning they are not responsible for paying Peeper's bill. They may also
3
argue that despite being an agent for Lady Panther, Jazzmine did not consult with Sleazy before making the contract.
3. If Helga Headroom sues Chad and the filmmaker for copyright infringement regarding the tattoo, the filmmaker may argue that the tattoo is on Chad's body, and he can display it as he wishes because he paid for it. Moreover, Helga has not registered the tattoo with the Copyright Office, meaning she has no grounds for a lawsuit. Although the tattoo artist can declare copyright
ownership over a tattoo design, this case is different because the tattoo is on someone’s body.
On the other hand, if Helga may prove that she has exclusive rights to the tattoo, she may argue that Chad and the filmmaker used her tattoo design without permission. Exclusive rights means that she should be responsible to reproduce, distribute, and display her work. Therefore, the filmmaker may be found guilty of copyright infringement. This would allow her to be entitled to monetary damages. 4.
Caroline had no authority to enter into the agreement with ABC on behalf of XYZ, meaning that XYZ is not mandated to abide by the contract. Caroline's duties involved administrative tasks and did not involve authority to decide on the company's benefit plans. Therefore, the XYZ representative should have been patient and ensured that ABC managers were present to examine and discuss the offer. The representative should also have ensured that any necessary documents are signed by the managers.
On the other hand, ABC may argue that Caroline had implied she had the authority to make decisions about XYZ's benefit plans. Her work as a receptionist included answering questions regarding general information requests about the company. Moreover, besides agreeing
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
to ABC's health plan, Caroline signed a contract accepting ABC's health benefits for XYZ's employees.
5.
Sunshine Fashions' decision to exclude overweight employees is justifiable. The company is taking preventative measures to minimize the risk of work-related injuries and medical claims. The policy applies to every employee without bias, making it a valid business decision. The policy is also just since it applies equally to all employees and participants.
However, the fashion company's decision may be seen as discriminatory, making it unethical and illegal under anti-discrimination laws. Jessica may have grounds to pursue a legal action against the company file a complaint for wrongful termination. Furthermore, the policy may be viewed as discriminatory against individual with disabilities and other medical conditions. The BMI of people with such conditions may not accurately measure their overall fitness and health. Short Answer Essays
A.
Rage nightclub may be held vicariously liable for the acts of their employee Theo. Vicarious liability is a legal rule suggesting that a supervisory party, such as an employer, is responsible for the conduct and actions of an associate or employee. In this case, Theo's role as the club's bouncer requires him to maintain order and interact with the club's customers. These duties make his actions related to his job responsibilities. While using a baseball bat does not fall
under his job duties, returning to the nightclub in his branded unform suggest that he might have acted as the club's employee during the incident. Therefore, the club may be held responsible for Theo's behavior.
5
B.
Suzi may legally claim against Tuber's vicarious liability for Dina's actions. Dina's actions as a taxi driver fall under her employment with Tuber. Therefore, Tuber may be accountable for Dina's actions. However, factors such as the accident's circumstances may impact Tuber's vicarious liability in the case. For instance, if Dina was running personal errands, the taxi company may not be held responsible for her actions. Moreover, if Dina failed to follow Tuber's rules and guidelines, the company may not be vicariously liable for her actions.
C.
MaxCo may not be liable for Julia's negligence. Although she works with the company, Julia works as an independent contractor, not the company's employee. Moreover, she does not get any oversight from the company, suggesting that MaxCo cannot be held responsible for her actions. Julia's independent contractor work means she is in control and responsible for her actions. However, the terms of Julia's contract with MaxCo may be used to determine whether MaxCo can be held liable for Julia's actions. For instance, the company may be liable if the contract indicates that MaxCo is responsible for Julia's work. However, if the contract states that Julia is responsible for any damages, MaxCo will not be liable for Julia's negligence.
D.
The general manager's actions are discriminatory. These actions can be viewed as unlawful discrimination since he instructed the hiring manager to employ people discriminatively based on race, which is illegal. Despite the demographics of the customer base, the general manager's actions consist of employment discrimination based on race. Moreover, the
hiring manager is forced to quit as she is exposed to a hostile work environment. This may give the hiring manager a strong case against the company for wrongful termination. Therefore, the
6
general manager may be held liable for their actions, and the hiring manager may get compensation for the harm caused by the retaliation and discriminatory actions against her.
E. The manager may have violated the employee's right to religious accommodation by firing her for attending church and not attending work on a Sunday. Employees should not be discriminated against due to their religion. Instead, they should be given reasonable deals regarding work and religion. Therefore, firing the employee for attending church may be viewed as a discriminatory action violating the employee's rights. However, the terms of the work agreement should also be considered. For instance, if the employee had agreed to come to work on Sundays, the manager would not have violated the employee's rights.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help