Business Law ( case Study

6 of 7
Case study
Nicholas is the managing director of a large construction company, Constructs Pty Ltd. He regularly has to tender for contracts for new jobs. Constructs Pty Ltd is busy at the moment but Nicholas is concerned about not having enough work to keep all his staff employed over the next 12 months.
Nicholas has been in negotiations with the Western Australian Department of Education about tendering for a contract to build a new high school in Perth, Western Australia. Nicholas has begun liaising directly with the Minister for Education, Joanne Lim. The Minister is able to enter into contracts on behalf of the State of Western Australia.
The Minister is concerned that Constructs Pty Ltd is not the best company for the job as they do not specialise in landscaping. The Minister is determined to construct a high school that will have modern facilities inside the class room and out. Nicholas assures the Minister that the company will employ three renowned landscapers if Constructs Pty Ltd is the successful tenderer.
After her conversation with Nicholas, the Minister asks a member of staff to express post the following letter:
1 February 2013
Nicholas Rogers
Constructs Pty Ltd
111 Kent Street
Bentley WA 6152
Dear Mr Rogers,
Following our discussions, I, as the Minister for Education, would like to offer you the contract to build the new high school in Perth, Western Australia.
The State is willing to pay $20 million for the construction of the high school, provided that work commences within this month and is completed by, and no later than, 2 January 2014. The high school must be completed and be safe for occupancy on 3 January 2014 as Department of Education teaching staff will commence work on 3 January 2014 and will require access to the premises.
It would be in the interest of the State, that where possible, you use local materials and produce.
Please confirm your acceptance of this offer by facsimile (fax) to the Minister’s Office or mail by 5pm today.
Regards,
Hon. Joanne Lim MLA
Minister for Education
Western Australia
7 of 7
Nicholas immediately faxes the following response:
1 February 2013
ATT: Hon. Joanne Lim MLA
Minister for Education, Western Australia
Dear Minister,
I refer to your letter dated 1 February 2013, outlining the offer to build the new high school in Perth, Western Australia.
On behalf of Constructs Pty Ltd, I accept the amount specified for payment and the conditions outlined therein.
Regards,
Nicholas Rogers
Managing Director
Constructs Pty Ltd
To be on the safe side, Nicholas also puts a copy of the facsimile in the post before 5pm.
The facsimile machine at the Minister’s Office has run out of paper. The fax is not received by the Minister’s Office until 9.30am the next morning. Meanwhile, the Minister has received a more competitive tender from another construction company, which specialises in construction and landscaping, and the Minister does not want to use Constructs Pty Ltd any more. A staff member of the Minister’s Office contacts Nicholas and tells him that as the Office did not receive his acceptance by 5pm, the offer has lapsed.
Nicholas really needs this contract to keep the company going. He does not think the Minister’s behaviour is fair because he did send the facsimile on time, by fax and by post. Nicholas believes that it was the Minister’s Office’s fault they did not receive the fax, not his.
Question 1:
Using the four step process, discuss the element of agreement required for the formation of a contract. Consider whether an agreement has been formed between Constructs Pty Ltd and the Minister for Education. Can Nicholas legally enforce the contract?
Question 2:
Assume there is a legally enforceable contract between Constructs Pty Ltd and the Minister for Education. Using the four step process determine the express contents of the contract, based on the correspondence that has taken place thus far. In your answer you will need to indicate whether the terms are conditions or warranties.

business law case study to be done on Kozloski V. American Tissue Services Foundation
Date: 11/01/2015
Categories
Information
Points
Case Info
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)(P) V. Sebelius (D)
132 S. Ct 2566
Supreme Court of the United States
0
Names of The Courts
Website Address of the Court Systems:
http://www.find.uscourts.gov/index.cfm
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/
(10)
Trial Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida
Intermediate Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Highest Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 and later President Obama signed the Act into Law. The main purpose and objective of the (PPAC) Act is to, increase the number of coverage for all Americans to have health insurance and this in turn will decrease the cost associated with health care for everyone. This Act mandates that any American without health insurance coverage will need to pay a “penalty” to the IRS. When the Act was signed into law, 26 states, private individuals, and organization (Independent Businesses) brought allegations that neither the Commerce Clause nor the Taxing Clause gave Congress authority to enact the individual mandate. Federal district court and appeals court agree and The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
(5)
Rule of Law
The individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires Americans to be protected by health insurance, however, the federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance, and it instead imposes a Tax on those without health insurance. The Constitution fully permits such a Tax and thus the Individual Mandate is considered constitutional.
(15)
Definitions
Severable: Capable of being treated as separate from whole legal right or obligation
Commerce Clause: Portion of Article 1, Section 8 that gives authority to Congress the power to regulate commerce with in State(s) and foreign nations.
Interstate Commerce: Congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. In order for congress to individually mandate this, the existing commercial activity must already be in place.
(5)
Writ of Certiorari: A petition asking the Supreme Court to hear a case
Issue
1) Does Congressional Law requiring all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty unconstitutional?
2) Does Congressional Law requiring States to choose between complying with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or loss of federal funding for Medicaid unconstitutional?
(10)
Trial Court Argument: U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida
The Act requiring the expansion of the Medicaid (minimum standards parameter for health insurance policies) program violates the U.S. Constitution. The individual mandate to purchase health insurance exceeds the limited authority of Congress, and therefore is also considered unconstitutional.
(5)
Trial Court Argument: U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida
Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce by increasing health care cost for all Americans. The Act requires States to meet the parameters of expanding Medicaid, otherwise funding for states on Medicaid coverage will discontinue.
(5)
Ruling Of Trial Judge
Judge, Roger Vinson, granted that the States/(NFIB) claim that the Act’s expansion of Medicaid is considered unconstitutional by violating the 10th Amendment. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States and individuals. Also, the Individual Mandate could not be severed from the remainder of the Act and therefor overturned the entire Act.
(5)
Who Appealed
The Federal Government appealed and the States cross appealed as to the Medicaid Expansion
(5)
Intermediate Appellant’s Court Argument-
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The Act requiring the expansion of the Medicaid (minimum standards parameter for health insurance policies) program violates the U.S. Constitution, but granting congress too much authority over the rights of Individuals and State.
(10)
Intermediate Appellee’s Court Argument- U.S. Court of Appeals for
Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce by increasing health care cost for all Americans.
(10)
the Eleventh Circuit
Ruling of Intermediate Appellate Court
Court Name:
Affirmed that the Individual Mandate was outside of Congress’s authority, but that the Mandate is severable and kept the remaining Act. Ruled that the Medical Expansion is constitutional and severable from the remaining Act.
(5)
Who Appealed
The Federal Government appealed and the State
Highest Appellant Court Argument
Court Name:
National Federation of Independent Business and States claim that Congress does not have authority to Mandate Individual Health Care by imposing a Penalty to Americans without Health Insurance. States should not be overpowered by discontinuing Medicaid funding if States do not comply with the Medicaid Expansion parameters.
(10)
Highest Appellee Court Argument
Court Name:
Congress has the authority to Mandate Individuals Health care under the Commerce Interstate clause and States should be penalized by not participating in the Medicaid Expansion parameters.
(10)
Ruling of Highest Appellate Court
Court Name:
1) The court ruled that Individual Mandate, imposing minimum essential coverage requirement under which certain individuals must purchase and maintain health insurance coverage, exceeded the Commerce Clause
2) The Individual Mandate was a “Tax” on American’s without Health coverage is within Congress’s Tax Authority under the constitution
3) Authority given to Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to penalize States that chose not to participate in Act’s expansion of Medicaid program exceeded Congress’s power under the Spending Clause
4) Penalization provision was severable
Affirmed
(5)
Your Opinion
(5)
If You Were CEO
(5)
Point Deducted
Total Points deducted from above categories
For Late Papers, Deduct
Due Date:
Presented:
(-25)
If you copy the judge’s words
(-15)
If you copy copyrighted words
(-100)
If you do not follow directions
No Attachments (-5)
Incomplete Chart (-5)
(-30)
Not All Stapled Together with one staple (-5)
Using People’s Name (-5)
Using of Plaintiff or Defendant; Appellant, Appellee, etc (-5)
Not Rounding off dates and/or Numbers (-5)
Other (-5)
For Every Grammatical and Spelling Error
(-1)
If you read or give a memorized presentation
(-15)
No Oral Report
(-25)
For Every Minute you go over the 5 Minuet Limit
Time Started:_______Time Ended:_____
(-1)
Final Grade for Case Study: _____________________________________________/100

business law case study to be done on Kozloski V. American Tissue Services Foundation

business law case study to be done on Kozloski V. American Tissue Services Foundation
Date: 11/01/2015
Categories
Information
Points
Case Info
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)(P) V. Sebelius (D)
132 S. Ct 2566
Supreme Court of the United States
0
Names of The Courts
Website Address of the Court Systems:
http://www.find.uscourts.gov/index.cfm
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/
(10)
Trial Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida
Intermediate Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Highest Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 and later President Obama signed the Act into Law. The main purpose and objective of the (PPAC) Act is to, increase the number of coverage for all Americans to have health insurance and this in turn will decrease the cost associated with health care for everyone. This Act mandates that any American without health insurance coverage will need to pay a “penalty” to the IRS. When the Act was signed into law, 26 states, private individuals, and organization (Independent Businesses) brought allegations that neither the Commerce Clause nor the Taxing Clause gave Congress authority to enact the individual mandate. Federal district court and appeals court agree and The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
(5)
Rule of Law
The individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires Americans to be protected by health insurance, however, the federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance, and it instead imposes a Tax on those without health insurance. The Constitution fully permits such a Tax and thus the Individual Mandate is considered constitutional.
(15)
Definitions
Severable: Capable of being treated as separate from whole legal right or obligation
Commerce Clause: Portion of Article 1, Section 8 that gives authority to Congress the power to regulate commerce with in State(s) and foreign nations.
Interstate Commerce: Congress may regulate any activity that has a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. In order for congress to individually mandate this, the existing commercial activity must already be in place.
(5)
Writ of Certiorari: A petition asking the Supreme Court to hear a case
Issue
1) Does Congressional Law requiring all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty unconstitutional?
2) Does Congressional Law requiring States to choose between complying with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or loss of federal funding for Medicaid unconstitutional?
(10)
Trial Court Argument: U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida
The Act requiring the expansion of the Medicaid (minimum standards parameter for health insurance policies) program violates the U.S. Constitution. The individual mandate to purchase health insurance exceeds the limited authority of Congress, and therefore is also considered unconstitutional.
(5)
Trial Court Argument: U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida
Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce by increasing health care cost for all Americans. The Act requires States to meet the parameters of expanding Medicaid, otherwise funding for states on Medicaid coverage will discontinue.
(5)
Ruling Of Trial Judge
Judge, Roger Vinson, granted that the States/(NFIB) claim that the Act’s expansion of Medicaid is considered unconstitutional by violating the 10th Amendment. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States and individuals. Also, the Individual Mandate could not be severed from the remainder of the Act and therefor overturned the entire Act.
(5)
Who Appealed
The Federal Government appealed and the States cross appealed as to the Medicaid Expansion
(5)
Intermediate Appellant’s Court Argument-
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The Act requiring the expansion of the Medicaid (minimum standards parameter for health insurance policies) program violates the U.S. Constitution, but granting congress too much authority over the rights of Individuals and State.
(10)
Intermediate Appellee’s Court Argument- U.S. Court of Appeals for
Congress may order individuals to buy health insurance because the failure to do so affects interstate commerce by increasing health care cost for all Americans.
(10)
the Eleventh Circuit
Ruling of Intermediate Appellate Court
Court Name:
Affirmed that the Individual Mandate was outside of Congress’s authority, but that the Mandate is severable and kept the remaining Act. Ruled that the Medical Expansion is constitutional and severable from the remaining Act.
(5)
Who Appealed
The Federal Government appealed and the State
Highest Appellant Court Argument
Court Name:
National Federation of Independent Business and States claim that Congress does not have authority to Mandate Individual Health Care by imposing a Penalty to Americans without Health Insurance. States should not be overpowered by discontinuing Medicaid funding if States do not comply with the Medicaid Expansion parameters.
(10)
Highest Appellee Court Argument
Court Name:
Congress has the authority to Mandate Individuals Health care under the Commerce Interstate clause and States should be penalized by not participating in the Medicaid Expansion parameters.
(10)
Ruling of Highest Appellate Court
Court Name:
1) The court ruled that Individual Mandate, imposing minimum essential coverage requirement under which certain individuals must purchase and maintain health insurance coverage, exceeded the Commerce Clause
2) The Individual Mandate was a “Tax” on American’s without Health coverage is within Congress’s Tax Authority under the constitution
3) Authority given to Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to penalize States that chose not to participate in Act’s expansion of Medicaid program exceeded Congress’s power under the Spending Clause
4) Penalization provision was severable
Affirmed
(5)
Your Opinion
(5)
If You Were CEO
(5)
Point Deducted
Total Points deducted from above categories
For Late Papers, Deduct
Due Date:
Presented:
(-25)
If you copy the judge’s words
(-15)
If you copy copyrighted words
(-100)
If you do not follow directions
No Attachments (-5)
Incomplete Chart (-5)
(-30)
Not All Stapled Together with one staple (-5)
Using People’s Name (-5)
Using of Plaintiff or Defendant; Appellant, Appellee, etc (-5)
Not Rounding off dates and/or Numbers (-5)
Other (-5)
For Every Grammatical and Spelling Error
(-1)
If you read or give a memorized presentation
(-15)
No Oral Report
(-25)
For Every Minute you go over the 5 Minuet Limit
Time Started:_______Time Ended:_____
(-1)
Final Grade for Case Study: _____________________________________________/100

business law case study to be done on Kozloski V. American Tissue Services Foundation