Please answer these three questions WITHOUT PLAGIARISM PLEASE, thank you. Don't worry about word count as long as you answer the questions thoroughly.

 

1. Watch the video case study (link below) and then and emphasize the connections between business, law, politics, and ethics. NO PLAGIARISM PLEASE, thank you.

 

 http://media.pearsoncmg.com/pcp/devry/mgmt520/BLaw2013_Work_Prot.m4v

 

 

- Here is a case that will let us explore agency concepts:

 

While in Darcy's department store in the Blue Ridge Mall, James Weller was observed by a Darcy's department store security guard named Kurt Johnson. Based upon this observation, Johnson suspected Weller was a shoplifter. Johnson followed Weller when Weller left the store and went next door to Franklin's department store. While in Franklin's, Johnson told Sally Larson, a Franklin's security guard, that he suspected Weller was a shoplifter. Even though his assistance was not requested, Johnson decided to remain to assist in case Larson, a petite woman, needed his help dealing with Weller if Weller committed an offense in Franklin's. Shortly thereafter Weller was observed taking items from the shoe department and when he tried to escape, he was pursued. Larson was unable to keep up with Weller so Johnson continued to pursue Weller and ultimately caught him in the lower level of the mall parking lot. When Larson arrived with the police, they found merchandise from Franklin's in Weller's possession. Weller broke his ankle when he jumped from one level of the parking lot to another and was taken to the hospital for treatment.

 

Weller sued Franklin's for the injuries he sustained when he was chased and apprehended by Johnson. Weller claimed that Johnson had chased him and hit him with his fists and a nightstick while acting as an agent of Franklin's. Franklin's denies it is liable because Weller was not its agent.

 

2. When looking at this case, what employment law theory do you think Weller could use to argue that Franklin's is liable for the assault committed against him by Johnson? Why did you select that theory? How do the facts from the case support this theory?

 

3. If Franklin's ratified their relationship with Mr. Johnson they would basically be giving 'after the fact' approval to Johnson's actions and then Franklin's would be responsible for any consequences. Should Franklin's ratify their relationship with Mr. Johnson? Why or why not?