* Once your purchase is processed by paypal you will be redirected back to this page and you'll have the option to download the paper. We'll also send the paper to your paypal email address as proof of purchase.Download Paper
Make each 250 words (4 pages= 1000)= 2 days
Do you think the punitive damages in Liebeck v. McDonald's was justified? Why, or why not? Does it make a difference that McDonald's rejected the plaintiff's settlement offer and countered with an offer of $800 or that McDonald's had already settled claim due to burning coffee for more than half a million dollars?
What is the purpose of OSHA safety standards? Do you think that businesses would take substantial safety precautions without the imposition of such standards? Does compliance with OSHA safety standards increase the cost of doing business in the United States? Why, or why not?
This question involves thinking critically about the three exceptions to at-will employment. At-will employment suggests that both employees and the employer are legally allowed to terminate the relationship at any time without notice, unless both parties sign an actual contract that states otherwise. However, there are three exceptions: public-policy exception, implied-contract exception, and covenant-of-good-faith exception. If you had to choose the exception with the most valid rationale for protecting an employee's rights, which one would it be and why?
Do you think the employer-employee relationship is one which provides equal power to the parties, and why? Does the covenant-of-good-faith exception to at-will employment level the playing field? Why, or why not?
Assignment Unit Iv
Length: 4 pages (1100 Words)
Do you think the punitive damage in Liebeck v. McDonald’s was justified? Why, or why not?
In any business entity there exist numerous transactions between the business and customers and therefore there is high probability that conflicts with the customers will always arise. These conflicts may take different shapes depending on how they are handled
In the Liebeck v.Mcdonald case, Liebeck was trying to open her cup when the superheated 170- degree coffee splashed into her lap burning her inner thighs. We can pinpoint a number of facts that justify the punitive damages that were awarded. To start with , Lieback requested McDonald to cater for her medical expenses which the company refused and offered a meager $800 as a counteroffer forcing Lieback to seek for an attorney. We also note Liebeck’s attorney attempted to settle again just before trial date but still McDonald refused.