Explain the rights Jake and Herman have individually in this scenario.

You will log into https://icampus.strayer.edu/login enter your campus User Account: C9552306026 password it has logged you in you will click on access Blackboard. This will open another window, click on the law, ethics and corp. link that is located under my courses. Once you are in you will click week 6 on the left to access assignment # 3 case study. Textbook used fro this course is: Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2009). Law & ethics in the business environment: 2010 custom
edition (6th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Assignment # 3 case study Employer’s Duty of Care-View the video by clicking on the link in the course shell. There is also a link that will allow you to print the script of the video. Write a three to five (3) page report that answers the following:

• Explain whether Jake’s actions are in or out of “his scope of employment.”
• Explain whether or not Herman is responsible for Jake’s injury.
• Explain whether or not Jake should be paid the overtime.
• Explain the rights Jake and Herman have individually in this scenario.

The format of the report is to be as follows:
Typed, double spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one inch margins on all sides, APA format.

Type the question followed by your answer to the question.

In addition to the three (3) page required, a title page is to be included. The title page is to contain the title of the assignment, your name, the instructor’s name, the course title, and the date.

NOTE: You will be graded on the quality of your answers, the logic/organization of the report, your language skills, and your writing skills.

For Week 6 discussion questions 1 and 2, you will retrieve the information from http://www.cengagebrain.com/shop/index.html, login is murphylaquan@yahoo.com and password will click under my course and material to access chapter 6 for all discussion questions.
Week 6 discussion 1 question
1.(a) explain what, according to Locke, gives a person their right to property.
Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, is common to all men, yet every man has a property of his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, is properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in he hath mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself…. What fish anyone catches in the ocean, that great and still remaining common of mankind… is by the labour that removes it out of that common state nature left in, made his property…As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of so much is his property. Nor was the appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it. any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left…(p.209) Halbert/Ingulli.
1(b). Identify any limitation on the right to own property.
If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up his empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that thought the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he… and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecured. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others…(p.210) Halbert/Ingulli.
1©. Discuss why Locke believes people form government.
If the man of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part of his freedom? Why will he give up his empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such aright, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the envasion of others: for all being kings as much as he… and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecured. The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent: for the preservation of property being by the end of government, and that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires, that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed to lose that, by entering into society, which was the end for which they entered into it, to gross an absurdity for any man to own. (p. 210) Halbert/Ingulli
2.Week 6 discussion 2 question
Review “Lucas v. South Carolina Costal Council” in Chapter 6. Please respond to the following:
2.(a) The image of David Lucas that emerges from majority Justice Scalia’s description is strikingly different from the one that Justice Blackman creates in his dissent. Identify the two contrasting stories in this case.
2(b) Explain why you think that when Lucas bought the land at issue, in 1986, he did or did not have reason to know that by building on it he would be the owner of a “pig in a parlor.”
2(c) Discuss the two types of regulatory action that, according to the majority, automatically triggers compensation as takings, without a court needing to examine the circumstances in a case-specific manner.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page:
 Total: