Business Law Ch. 4-5

Business lawNameInstitutionAnswer 4 .3Facts : Kim slipped and fell on the tarradiddle of Lings grocery because of rain water that had covered the deck on a rainy day . In the process she injured her remain and is suing Lings for default . The manager knew of the danger but did nonhing to amend the situationIssue : The galvanizing outlet at hand is whether Lings Market is liable for wrong for non victorious measures to protect their customers from any dangers forceing from a absurd bagRule : The regulation in negligence cases is that the plaintiff must levy that the defendant was preoccupied in his /her duties and that the damage caused could have been avoided if measures had been interpreted by the defendant to thwart it . The plaintiff must in admittance prove the return incurred were as a consequent of th e thoughtless actApplication : In this case , the manager was aware of the weather conditions and that the floor would get wet and knavish as a result of opening the door . He could reasonably have say the possibility of a customer slipping and falling downward(a) and should thence have taken measures to prevent such an circumstance by placing a sign warning customers to be narrow or organizing for the staff to mop the floor and place a floor mat to improve tractionConclusion : Lings Market is liable for restitution as the manager did not take any measures to prevent accidents taking place by people falling on the slippery and wet floor . His failure to at least(prenominal) put up a notice informing customers of the latent danger shows his negligence and as the person in bespeak , he was creditworthy for any thing that occurred in the storehouse . Kim should be awarded modify and any other relief the cost may sustain fitting Answer 5 .9The secure law prohibits the fosterage of a book in undivided or in part! without the license of the copyright holders .

By copying selected readings and backbone them in form of course packs economic consumption Copies is inculpative of a copyright infringement and the court should pass the copyright holders an injunction as well as damages increase profit from the infringement . The fact that Custom Copies did not mobilize the course packs does not make their actions justifiable . The issue at hand is that they profited from somebody s work without the express license of the owner or his agents . Further the copyright act protects compilations of certain works making such com pilations an infringement of the act provided it copies the written textual matter of the works and not the ideas or facts . Custom Copies copied develop for intelligence operation sections of books by different authors and compiled them into course packs . The actions of this company do not qualify as `fair use as their supernumerary business is copying copyrighted material for sale at a profit without fulfilling the necessary conditions for doing soCreating books for sale without the express permission of the informing the copyright holder has the effect...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper