Business Law Case Studies Essays - Payment Systems, Legal Documents

Business Law Case Studies Essays - Payment Systems, Legal Documents Business Law Case Studies Students Name University Question one The answer to this question is that the promissory note was concluded to be an order to pay. Discussion Mrs. McGuire entered into a purchase and sale agreement for Beccas Boutique utilizing a standard real estate purchase and sale form on August 17, 1979 with the help from colleagues in her real estate office. Mrs. McGuire and her husband promised to pay buy the boutique store for $75,000. At first they paid a down payment of $10,000 and therefore the balance that was due to be paid on October 5, 1979 was $65,000. Moreover, it was allegedly agreed that the sale was contingent upon Mrs. McGuire and her husband acquiring a Small Business loan in the remaining amount of $65,000. This was the commitment for which it shall be received on or before October 5, 1979 or otherwise the agreement should become null and void and all the amount of money returned to Mrs. McGuire and her husband, unless time is extended by the seller. Mrs. McGuire signed the agreement although it was allegedly said that she forged her husband signature to the document without her husbands consent. Additionally, according to the security clause towards the agreement, the promissory note indicated that pay to the order of Green Mountain Inn, Inc. with recourse. There were signatures and date, September 7, 1979 for Mr. and Mrs. Tursi in the agreement. Besides, Parker Perry stated that he recalled receiving the Tursiss promissory note but did not remember receiving McGuires promissory note as the security for the agreement. Perry Parkers attorney handled all the financial issues that were connected to the sale of Green Mountain Inn. Perry also asserted that he never McGuires prior to receiving the promissory note but he knew that the Tursis wanted to sell their two boutique shops. Question two Answer: Yes the promissory note is a negotiable instrument Discussion The whole action of the promissory note was brought forward by the plaintiff, the bank, Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank against the defendant, William Bailey. The defendant executed a promissory note in December, 1982 in favor of the California Dreamstreet which was a joint venture that solicited investments in a cattle-breeding process. California Dreamstreet negotiated the promissory note in 1986 to the bank, which later turned the action on August 29, 1988. There was a very important part in the note which stated that Dr. William H. Bailey promised to pay the order to CALIFORNIA DREAMSTREET a sum of $329,000. Therefore, the court with all the reasons that were found, declared that the promissory note which was subject to the action was a negotiable instrument. Furthermore, the court ordered that the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment was denied without biasness to its being renewed upon the completion of the discovery. Question three Answer: It was concluded, in favor of the defendants, that the check was not a negotiable instrument. Discussion A check is not considered a negotiable instrument if the drawer writes on it a promise, order, obligation or power which, when analyzed on its face, in any way restricts the drafters unconditional promise to pay. In addition, both parties did not disagree that the check is usually a negotiable instrument. Moreover, defendants resisted that the note that the Paracha wrote on the check destroyed the negotiability agreement. According to the defendants, a negotiable instrument must be unconditional promise, or order to pay and must not containing other promise or power or obligation except as endorsed by the article. Additionally, defendants also argued that the notation makes a check a conditional promise to pay because it makes the check subject to, or ruled by, another agreement. Defendants also argued that the note was so irregular that a person would be put on notice of the checks restricted purpose, and may discover that the check is actually not a negotiable instrument. But on the other side, Carador declares that the check is a negotiable instrument because the notation indicated that $33,000 was conveyed from defendants to Al-Bark as security for presentation of a contract. Question Four It was concluded that Kalbe won the case because he was awarded $7,260 that represented the overdraft. Although he did

Weight Definition in Science

Weight Definition in Science The everyday definition of weight is a measure of how heavy a person or object it. However, the definition is slightly different in science. Weight is the name of the force exerted on an object due to the acceleration of gravity. On Earth, weight is equal to the mass times the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/sec2 on Earth). Key Takeaways: Weight Definition in Science Weight is the product of mass multiplied by acceleration acting on that mass. Usually, its an objects mass multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.On Earth, mass and weight have the same value and units. However, weight has a magnitude, like mass, plus a direction. In other words, mass is a scalar quantity while weight is a vector quantity.In the United States, the pound is a unit of mass or weight. The SI unit of weight is the newton. The cgs unit of weight is the dyne. Units of Weight In the United States, the units of mass and weight are the same. The most common unit of weight is the pound (lb). However, sometimes the poundal and slug are used. The poundal is the force needed to accelerate a 1-lb mass at 1 ft/s2. The slug is the mass that is accelerated at 1 ft/s2 when 1 pound-force is exerted upon it. One slug is the equivalent of 32.2 pounds. In the metric system, units of mass and weight are separate. The SI unit of weight is the newton (N), which is 1 kilogram meter per second squared. It is the force required to accelerate a 1-kg mass 1 m/s2. The cgs unit of weight is the dyne. The dyne is the force needed to accelerate a mass of one gram at the rate of one centimeter per second squared. One dyne equals exactly 10-5 newtons. Mass vs Weight Mass and weight are easily confused, especially when pounds are used! Mass is a measure of the quantity of matter contained in an object. It is property of matter and does not change. Weight is a measure of the effect of gravity (or other acceleration) upon an object. The same mass can have a different weight depending on the acceleration. For example, a person has the same mass on the Earth and on Mars, yet weighs only about one-third as much on Mars. Measuring Mass and Weight Mass is measured on a balance by comparing a known amount of matter (a standard) against an unknown amount of matter. Two methods may be used to measure weight. A balance may be used to measure weight (in units of mass), however, balances wont work in the absence of gravity. Note a calibrated balance on the Moon would give the same reading as one on Earth. The other method of measuring weight is the spring scale or pneumatic scale. This device accounts for the local force of gravity upon an object, so a spring scale can give a slightly different weight for an object at two locations. For this reason, scales are calibrated to give the weight an object would have at nominal standard gravity. Commercial spring scales must be re-calibrated when they are moved from one location to another. Weight Variance Across the Earth Two factors change weight at different locations on the Earth. Increasing altitude decreases weight because it increases the distance between a body and the mass of the Earth. For example, a person who weighs 150 pounds at sea level would weigh about 149.92 pounds at 10,000 feet above sea level. Weight also varies with latitude. A body weighs slightly more at the poles than at the equator. In part, this is due to the bulge of the Earth near the equator, which puts objects at the surface slightly further from the center of mass. The difference in centrifugal force at the poles compared to the equator also plays a role, where centrifugal force acts perpendicular to the axis of the Earths rotation. Sources Bauer, Wolfgang and Westfall, Gary D. (2011).  University Physics with Modern Physics. New York: McGraw Hill. p.  103.  ISBN  978-0-07-336794-1.Galili, Igal (2001). Weight versus gravitational force: historical and educational perspectives. International Journal of Science Education. 23: 1073. doi:10.1080/09500690110038585Gat, Uri (1988). The weight of mass and the mess of weight. In Richard Alan Strehlow (ed.). Standardization of Technical Terminology: Principles and Practice – second volume. ASTM International. pp. 45–48. ISBN 978-0-8031-1183-7.Knight, Randall D. (2004). Physics for Scientists and Engineers: a Strategic Approach. San Francisco, USA: Addison–Wesley. pp. 100–101. ISBN 0-8053-8960-1.Morrison, Richard C. (1999). Weight and gravity - the need for consistent definitions. The Physics Teacher. 37: 51. doi:10.1119/1.880152