Lesson 14

Respond with 100 words ;

Guilson;

With the following information provided, I believe that Caroline was not authorized to enter a contract binding ABC to adopt XYZ’s insurance plan. Caroline employment duties consists of greeting customers, answering telephone calls, sort mail, and respond to general requests for information about ABC, which there is no mentioning or any identification that signing contracts is within the course of her employment and ordinary duties. According to McDougall, A. (n.d.), “In daily business life it is often the case that a company employee who holds either an administrative, purchasing, or financial position is entrusted with the responsibility of negotiating a contract” (para. 1) and that “the signatory is not a director or secretary whom the law deems to have the undoubted right to bind the company” (para. 2). For the employee to be a signatory, they must have either actual, implied/or apparent, and ostensible authority which legally authorizes the employee to bind the company in contracts. In the blog, Can an Employee Bind a Corporation to a Contract, by Robins Appleby (2015) pointed out that in the case “Accra Wood Products Ltd., Re 2014 BCSC 1259, The issue in Accra was whether the supplier of goods on credit, Formations Inc. (“Formations”), could rely on the assumption that Lisa Golding (“Golding”), the office manager for Accra Wood Products (“Accra Wood”), had authority to enter into a credit agreement and provide security on behalf of Accra Wood” (para. 3). The court in this case found that there was a relationship between the Accra and Wood and Formations, and that the signatory had previously signed credit applications and that the signatory authority was never questioned. Even though I believe that ABC will not be bound to the contract, like the examples above, ABC will have to provide proof that there has never been a relationship with XYZ and that Caroline never had authority to be a signatory for the company.

Lesson 15

Respond with 100 words ;

Guilson;

First, Lau & Johnson (2014) define sexual harassment as another discrimination based on sex, which can also take place in work environment (pg. 387). This sexual harassment is known as hostile work environment, which is what the Claimant, Stephanie Britton, went through while working at Florida Light and Power Authority. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states that “It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature” (EEOC, Sexual Harassment). This is true, especially when it causes an employee to quit because the actions are frequent creating hostile and offensive work environment, just like the event with Britton. As the EEOC Claim’s Officer, I would include all the facts above provided and note that Britton’s management failed to address and act on the issue of sexual harassment reported by her numerous of times. I would back up the case and the fact pattern with the Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting employment discrimination based on sex and the Florida Statute, Section 760.10, that also prohibits employment discrimination based on sex. Nunan v Aaction Traffic Services Pty Ltd[2013] QCAT 565 and McCauley v Club Resort Holdings Pty Ltd [2014] QCAT 243 are cases that the claimants claimed sexual harassment in the work environment, like Britton. The claims included frequent unwelcoming verbal sexual harassment and some physical that created a hostile work environment leading to resignation. With the following statute and Cases I do believe that Britton will prevail in her case because of hostile work environment and sexual harassment.