1 / 1

GBA 231 MODULE 4 DISCUSSION LATEST-SAINT LEO

<br>Visit Below Link, To Download This Course:<br><br>https://www.tutorialsservice.net/product/gba-231-module-4-discussion-latest-saint-leo/<br><br>Or <br>Email us on<br>SUPPORT@TUTORIALSSERVICE.NET<br><br>GBA 231 Module 4 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo<br>GBA231<br>GBA 231 Module 4 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo<br>Read the ETHICS section of your text on page 235. This section describes a case in which a paralegal who had been orally promised a bonus of $1,065,000 was deprived of the bonus in a dispute because no written agreement existed as to the bonus as would have been required by the Statute of Frauds.<br>That an agreement was had was beyond dispute, because there existed a (secret) recording detailing the promise of the bonus between the paralegal and his/her employer.<br>

tutorialsservicesnet
Download Presentation

GBA 231 MODULE 4 DISCUSSION LATEST-SAINT LEO

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GBA 231 MODULE 4 DISCUSSION LATEST-SAINT LEO Visit Below Link, To Download This Course: https://www.tutorialsservice.net/product/gba-231-module-4-discussion-latest-saint-leo/ Or Email us on SUPPORT@TUTORIALSSERVICE.NET GBA 231 Module 4 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo GBA231 GBA 231 Module 4 Discussion Latest-Saint Leo Read the ETHICS section of your text on page 235. This section describes a case in which a paralegal who had been orally promised a bonus of $1,065,000 was deprived of the bonus in a dispute because no written agreement existed as to the bonus as would have been required by the Statute of Frauds. That an agreement was had was beyond dispute, because there existed a (secret) recording detailing the promise of the bonus between the paralegal and his/her employer. As your text explains, the Statute of Frauds requires certain types of contracts (such as contracts to buy or sale land) to be both made in writing and executed with the physical signatures of all of the parties involved. This requirement was clearly not met. Further, the undisclosed recording of the agreement constitutes a crime. Was a fair result handed down in this matter? What, if anything, would you do to modify the Court’s decision?

More Related