demonstrate how middle-range theory can help you in your everyday environment as a nurse. In the previous assignment (Part 1), you identified a clinical practice problem that you are aware of in professional nursing practice. In this assignment, you will explore and apply a middle-range theory to solve the specific problem that you identified in Part 1.
Consider the problem that you described in the Part 1 assignment and the instructor feedback you received on your written response.
Write a paper (1,000-1,500 words) that describes how a middle-range theory can be applied to the identified problem. The paper should include the following:
Summary of the problem.
A description of a middle-range theory that could be applied to the problem. Include a rationale describing why this middle-range theory is appropriate to your identified problem.
. This case at first instance was argued before Mr. Edward Bartley Jones QC. As of 22nd January 2009, when this case was being heard in the High Court, Mr. Grant still held shares in the company which had gone bankrupt. He claimed that the emails sent among the parties in this case satisfied the factors needed for the formation of a contract. The primary issue of this court was to determine whether both parties by the emails sent and received had entered a contract for the purchase of Mr. Grant’s shares by Mr. Bragg at a price of £346,760. The court ruled in favour of the claimant. The judge decided through the application of precedent set out in G. Percy Trentham Limited v Archital Luxfer Limited that Mr. Bragg by 30th January 2007 was already reaping the benefits of the claimant’s shares although he had not bought them. He said that, ‘nothing at this point remained to be agreed’, seeing as both parties had accepted the Dixon Ward wording and all that was needed from Mr. Grant on 30th January 2007 was to give a definitive confirmation of acceptance. He believed that the fourth email did not place a time scale for the acceptance of the contract but its purpose was to cajole Mr. Grant to come to a quick decision. His judgement provides that the first and last emails formed a contract. 3. The appellant, Mr. Bragg, brought forward three points against the previous judgement of the Royal High Court; (a.) per the conversation between the shareholders which took place at the end of January 2007 and Mr. Grant’s rejection of the Dixon Ward wording, Mr. Grant rejected the offer and following the rules of contract law an offer once rejected becomes void. ; (b.) Mr. Grant’s failure to respond to the offer before the designated time of expiration made his acceptance unenforceable ; (c.) the subject to contract exclusionary principle found in the case of Cheverny Consulting Limited v Whitehead Mann Ltd which as defined by Neil Andrews is ‘…a shared understanding that the relevant consensus is not legally effective as a contract’ was applicable in this case. Lord Justice Neuberger in his judgement states that the points raised by the appellant were valid. He believed the information obtained from the third, fourth and fifth emails implied that the offer had been rejected. His judgement states that the respondent’s failure to communicate acceptance within the given time frame made the offer inoperative. Lady Smith LJ also affirmed that in the third email Mr. Jenkins made it clear that the appellant believed there would be no contract until the Dixon Ward draft had been signed by both parties. Hence, the appeal was allowed unanimously and the judgement of the High Court was reversed. 4. This case encapsulates the difficulty involved in the establishment of acceptance via email which following precedent depends on the facts, intentions and conduct of the parties involved and th>GET ANSWER