Recent orders
Assignment: Qualitative And Observational Studies
Review the scenario discussed in chapter 8 (in “business research method.pdf“), discussion question 8 (on the final pages of the chapter). Then, in no more than one page(double space), answer the following questions:
- 8a: What other information might you find useful to observe?
- 8b: How would you decide what information to collect?
- 8c: Devise the operational definitions you would need.
- 8d: What would you say in your instructions to the observers you plan to use?
- Additional question: List any potential ethical issues in the conduct and execution of your research and propose how to address them.
Law
Instructions:
To explain constitutional law and how it might apply to GC operations and transactions, you decide to prepare a hypothetical example scenario and an accompanying analysis to present to GC owners.
Assume the scenario you prepared follows.
Hypothetical Example Scenario: EPI sells its green cleaning products to customers in most states. Its biggest product sales are in the Mid-Atlantic states.
Recently, the West Virginia (WV) legislature enacted a law banning all sales and importation of EPI’s “Clear Shine Window Cleaner” until further notice. It was discovered that one of the ingredients, derived from sunflowers, is contaminated and causes a quick-growing mold to spread on all surfaces to which it is applied. The mold can be toxic for humans and can cause damage to interior building surfaces.
EPI challenged the new law as unconstitutional, but the law was upheld in the West Virginia courts.
Address the questions below.
1. Analyze the U.S. Constitution whether the WV legislature has constitutional authority to enact the law, and specifically why and how. (Tip: this is not primarily a Commerce Clause issue.)
· include in your analysis, the basis of the argument the WV courts would apply to uphold the law
2. Regardless of your response in 1. above, assume the WV legislature has constitutional authority to enact the law and thus, the ban is upheld.
Evaluate and discuss whether the restriction on private business activities is fair or unfair and explain why.
Format Instructions:
Prepare the analysis in a report, addressed to Winnie and Ralph, to be used in discussion with the GC owners.
The report should address the questions in the Instructions above. Follow the format below.
REPORT
TO: Winnie James, Ralph Anders
FROM: (your name)
DATE:
RE: Constitutional Law and Business Regulation
1.
Example
2.
Example
Business Law Assignment 8 Question And One Discussion
Please answer the essay questions of following chapters in detail with citing:
Chapter 18 – assignment: Essay Questions 1,3,4,5 page 421-422
Chapter 19 – assignment: Essay Questions 1,3,4,5 page 448
Discussion
Note: This case is presented here for the court’s explanation of its rationale to apply the UCC to a software license.
Facts: i.LAN Systems, Inc. (“i.LAN”) helps companies monitor their computer networks. NetScout Service Level Corp., formerly known as NextPoint Networks, Inc. (“NextPoint”), sells sophisticated software that monitors networks. In 1998, i.LAN and NextPoint signed a detailed Value Added Reseller (“VAR”)
agreement whereby i.LAN agreed to resell NextPoint’s software to customers. This dispute concerns a transaction that took place in 1999.
i.LAN claims that for $85,231.42 it purchased the unlimited right to use NextPoint’s software, replete with perpetual upgrades and support, whereby it effectively could rent, rather than sell, NextPoint’s software to customers. In support of its argument, i.LAN points to the purchase order associated with the transaction. NextPoint, in response, points to the 1998 VAR agreement and the clickwrap license agreement contained in the software itself to reach a different conclusion.
The parties continued their relationship for several months without confronting their conflicting interpretations of the 1999 purchase order, but eventually the disagreement erupted into litigation. i.LAN filed a complaint that alleges breach of contract. Both parties moved for summary judgment, i.LAN arguing that it should be awarded specific performance—perpetual upgrades of NextPoint’s software and unlimited support—and NextPoint arguing that even if i.LAN’s allegations were true, the clickwrap license agreement limits NextPoint’s liability to the price paid for the software: $85,231.42.
Issue: What law should the court apply to resolve this conflict over the terms of clickwrap license agreements for software?
Holding: The court held that it would interpret the clickwrap license pursuant to Article 2 of the UCC:
Two bodies of contract law might govern the clickwrap license agreement: Massachusetts common law and the UCC. Article 2 of the UCC applies to “transactions in goods.” The purchase of software might seem like an ordinary contract for the sale of goods, but in fact the purchaser merely obtains a license to use the software; never is there a “passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price.” Despite Article 2’s requirement of a sale, courts in Massachusetts have assumed, without deciding, that Article 2 governs software licenses.
The Court will examine the license agreement through the lens of the UCC. The UCC technically does not govern software licenses, and very likely does not govern the 1998 VAR agreement, but with respect to the 1999 transaction, the UCC best fulfills the parties’ reasonable expectations.
In Massachusetts and across most of the nation, software licenses exist in a legislative void. Legal scholars, among them the Uniform Commissioners on State Laws, have tried to fill that void, but their efforts have not kept pace with the world of business. [The court discussed the unsuccessful attempts to address software licenses through a new UCC Article 2B and the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (“UCITA”).] Software licenses are entered into every day, and business persons reasonably expect that some law will govern them. For the time being, Article 2’s familiar provisions — which are the inspiration for UCITA — better fulfill those expectations than would the common law. Article 2 technically does not, and certainly will not in the future, govern software licenses, but for the time being, the Court will assume it does.
Question: What is the basis for i.LAN’s and NextPoint’s dispute?