The burden of proof Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The burden of proof - Essay Example The Union’s past practice argument cannot hold because the assessment test has already been given to previous applicants in the Technical Department.   The Union claimed that the company awarded the job to senior bidders in the past.   However, the Union did not take into consideration that seniority was not the only requirement, passing the assessment test was a minimum qualification for the position being bided for.3. Does it matter which type of assessment is used by the Company?  Yes, the type of assessment used by the Company matters because it will determine if a certain applicant is qualified to do the job or not.   The type of assessment should be able to measure the capabilities of the applicant which are necessary in accomplishing a certain job.4. If the Union alleged that the Work Keys Assessment was not valid, which party wouldhave to prove the validity?  The validity of the Work Keys Assessment should be proven by the company through the Subject Matter E xperts (SMEs) who designed it and approved its use.   The SMEs have been with the company for an average of more than 17 years.   As stated by the company, â€Å"Who better to determine the tasks and skills required for an entry-level position than those who have performed it?"   The SMEs are in a position to state that those who pass the test have the necessary skill levels for entry and effective performance in the extra hand position.5. You are the arbitrator. What is your decision? Why? If I were the arbitrator of the case, my decision is that Ms. Boone.

Consideration - Pre-existing Duties and Part Payment of Debts Essay

Consideration - Pre-existing Duties and Part Payment of Debts - Essay Example The facts of the case were that a borrower, Cole, owed Pinnel [the lender] the equivalent of  £8.50 [ £8-10s-0d] which was to be repaid on 11 November. At the lender’s request, the borrower paid  £5.11 [ £5-2s-2d] on 1 October, which the lender claimed to accept in full settlement of the debt.    The lender then successfully sued the borrower for the outstanding amount.   The House of Lords held that since no consideration was exchanged to enforce the promise of the lender to accept part-payment of a debt on the due date from the borrower, then the lender could pursue full payment of the debt at a later date. This remains the general rule at common law.   However, in Pinnel’s Case, it was also said that the agreement to accept part payment would have bound the lender if fresh consideration had been provided to show accord and satisfaction.   This might be: The facts of the case were that a borrower, Cole, owed Pinnel [the lender] the equivalent of  £8. 50 which was to be repaid on 11 November. At the lender’s request, the borrower paid  £5.11 [ £5-2s-2d] on 1 October, which the lender claimed to accept in full settlement of the debt.    The lender then successfully sued the borrower for the outstanding amount.   The House of Lords held that since no consideration was exchanged to enforce the promise of the lender to accept part-payment of a debt on the due date from the borrower, then the lender could pursue full payment of the debt at a later date.