kindly assist..business law.

1.

James Anderson was fired by Strong Associates, the company where he had been employed for the past 10 years. He received a letter from Strong who offered to pay Anderson twice the amount of severance pay in exchange for Anderson signing a document releasing Strong Associates from any claims related to his firing. The letter contained the release that Strong wanted Anderson to sign and return; along with a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope. Anderson signed the release, sealed it in the enclosed envelope, and took it to the mailbox outside of his local post office. When Anderson returned from the post office, he checked his mailbox and found another envelope from Strong Associates. This envelope contained the check for the doubled severance pay. Anderson went back to the post office and convinced an employee to open the mailbox so that he could retrieve the signed release. He then took the check to his bank and cashed it. With the money in the bank and the release in his hand, Anderson filed a lawsuit for wrongful termination against Strong Associates.

Please complete the following for your assignment:

1. What legal issue is involved in this case?

2. Based on the Issue identified, provide an argument for McCarthy using specific facts of the case and the relevant legal theory to support it.

3. Based on the Issue identified, provide an argument for the ABC Construction using specific facts of the case and the relevant legal theory to support it.

4. Based on the facts given, and what you know about the legal issues involved, how would the court decide the case? In favor of McCarthy or ABC. Provide an explanation using a reference to a homework case that involves similar issues and facts.

2.

Please help me answer this case study. What law apply to it and and why --- this is from the book business law with UCC APP 14th ed (I cannot find the right subject under business and this is the best option I could find)

Facts:

Henderson worked as a chemical engineer for the Wannisky Chemical Corporation. McGuire, Henderson from serval hundred steel drums that had once contained a severely corrosive acid. McGuire told Henderson that they intended to reuse the drums to ship a new chemical fertilizer. Henderson refused to remove the labels because reusing the old drums would violate both state and federal laws. When McGuire told another employee to remove the label and reuse the drums, Henderson reported the company's activities to the state and federal authorities. Henderson was fired for his refusal to follow orders and for notifying the legal authorities.

Issues:

In a lawsuit against Wannisky, which legal exception to the employment-at-will doctrine did Henderson use? Explain

3.

Case1

George Jones was a level 1 assembler in the heavy-components assembly department. He worked with six other assemblers of the same grade, constructing cabs for the power shovels. The supervisor, Ralph Barnes, was in charge of three of these heavy-assembly crews. George Jones had been with GMFC for about four years. Over the past six months, he had spent all of his time with his present work crew. His work record had been unremarkable. He had two unexcused absences but no problems with supervision..

On May 6, Jones struck a co-worker, Elliot Johnson, with his fist, rendering him unconscious. As soon as Barnes arrived on the scene and gave first aid, he asked the work crew what happened. They had only seen Jones strike Johnson. After Johnson regained consciousness, Barnes asked him what happened. Johnson stated he and Jones had been talking when Jones suddenly turned and swung at him. Barnes then asked Jones what happened. Jones, who is the only African American employee in his work group, said Johnson had been making racial slurs toward him ever since he joined the crew, and his morning he had been pushed over the brink when Johnson said." If it weren't for affirmative action, welfare would be the only thing that would keep a shirt on you back."

From his supervisor training course, Barnes knew it was company policy to discharge anyone it was company policy to discharge anyone who struck another employee or started a fight. Thus, he called Jones to the HR department for termination. When Jones arrived there, he demanded to see Ralph Murphy, the union steward in his area. After conferring, Murphy filed a grievance on Jones' behalf, alleging the company had violated Section 4.02 of the contract by discharging him without case. His grievance stated the attack on Johnson was justified given his past harassment and punching him seemed to be the "only way to get him off my back."

When Murphy gave the grievance to Barnes, it was immediately denied. Barnes said," The rule is ironclad, as far as I'm concerned. They said we supervisors didn't have any latitude on this issue.'

Murphy then presented copies of the grievance to the shift IR representative, Carolyn Foster, and the general supervisor, Neal Young. In her examination of the grievance, Foster called Johnson and Cronholm, Jensen and Albers (three other employees in the work group) to her office separately. When questioned, Johnson repeated his allegation that Jones's attack was unprovoked and adamantly denied ever making racial slurs toward him. Information from Jensen and Albers supported Johnson's denial of racial slurs, but Cronholm said he had repeatedly heard Johnson make disparaging remarks to Jones and Jones had asked him to stop. After weighing this information and considering company policy on fighting, she upheld Barnes's action.

The union continued to demand Jones's reinstatement with full back pay, and management adamantly refused.

When the case was heard, the union's grievance alleged not only that had Jones been discharged without cause (section4.02) but also that the discharge had been racially motivated, violating the EEO section (12.16a). In its opening argument, the company asked you to find the grievance nonarbitrable because Jones could file a charge with the EEOC under Title VII if your award upheld the discharge. The company also said the discrimination issue was not arbitrable because it had not been raised in Step 3 as provided in EEO Section 12.16b. You noted the arguments but reserved your ruling on arbitrability for the decision you would prepare,

Both sides presented their evidence. All of it was in substantial agreement with what Barnes and Foster had found in their investigation. Jones and Johnson held to their stories, as did Jenson, Albers, and Cronholm. The company introduced evidence to show that without exception employees had been terminated for fighting. It also provided statistics showing that 12 percent of the eight employees discharged for fighting over the past three years were African American and 14 percent of the production labor force was African American.

Questions

In this case, your award should contain:

1. Your rationale in finding on the merits of the case. (if arbitrable)

2. If arbitrable, the degree to which you would grant the relief Jones is asking or uphold management.

4.

Please help me answer this case study. What law apply to it and and why --- this is from the book business law with UCC APP 14th ed (I cannot find the right subject under business and this is the best option I could find)

Facts:

Henderson worked as a chemical engineer for the Wannisky Chemical Corporation. McGuire, Henderson from serval hundred steel drums that had once contained a severely corrosive acid. McGuire told Henderson that they intended to reuse the drums to ship a new chemical fertilizer. Henderson refused to remove the labels because reusing the old drums would violate both state and federal laws. When McGuire told another employee to remove the label and reuse the drums, Henderson reported the company's activities to the state and federal authorities. Henderson was fired for his refusal to follow orders and for notifying the legal authorities.

Issues:

In a lawsuit against Wannisky, which legal exception to the employment-at-will doctrine did Henderson use? Explain