Many employers use integrity and personality tests but some of these have been challenged in courts. One example is where the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Rent-a-Center’s use of the MMPI personality test probably prevented mentally challenged individuals from getting promotions in the company. Shortly after this ruling, Jeannine Cruz sued the Louisiana State Police claiming that she was discriminated against based on sex because her scores on several employment tests (including the MMPI) were not high enough to warrant promotion to a trooper position. In fact, her performance on the tests indicated that she was a candidate for "sexual misconduct" and "chemical dependency/" She claimed in her suit that the tests utilized are not fair to women because men tend to score more positively than do women. Some experts think that similar lawsuits can be expected based on the Rent-a-Center case if companies do not relate the test content to specific job content. 1. Do you think employers should use integrity and personality tests to make recruiting and promotion decisions? Why or why not? 2. Can you think of some jobs where integrity and personality tests might be more appropriate than for other jobs? Give your rationale. 3. Do you think companies will use more or less integrity and personality tests in the next five years? Why?
Contract Law Case Study of Hotel Distributed: 23rd March, 2015 Last Edited: second January, 2018 Disclaimer: This article has been put together by an understudy. This isn't a case of the work composed by our expert exposition scholars. You can see tests of our expert work here. Any sentiments, discoveries, conclusions or proposals communicated in this material are those of the writers and don't really mirror the perspectives of UK Essays. Contract law including a lodging and customer A. In this situation, the primary huge point is the idea of the gatherings' separate first dealings with each other. From the lodging's perspective, their first contact with A was through their notice on their site. This publicized the cost of settlement at the Scarborough Palms Hotel as being £300. From A's perspective, his first contact with the lodging is through an underlying messaged enquiry. Despite the fact that we are not told precisely what An's underlying enquiry was worried about, it is plausible that it was just requesting points of interest of the offer. With a specific end goal to build up what the idea of a definitive contract is, between the lodging and An, it is first important to locate the 'offer' and 'acknowledgment'; the constituent parts of any agreement. An offer has been held to be an announcement which equitably (I.e. to a sensible onlooker) demonstrates that the individual making the 'offer' is set up to contract on the terms indicated in that offer (Gibson v Manchester City Council). It would at first sight, create the impression that the lodging's site and advert for the settlement at the predefined cost was an offer. This, notwithstanding, isn't the situation, as it has been held by the courts that ads are as a rule 'solicitations to treat' instead of offers, as the advert for the most part does not have the other basic element of an agreement; an expectation to be lawfully bound (Partridge v Crittenden). This guideline is set up with a specific end goal to shield the sponsor from bringing about obligation in contract to everybody who will buy the products (for this situation, the occasion), at the promoted cost. A 'challenge to treat' is a solicitation to the next gathering to arrange the terms of a potential contract. A reacts to this welcome by making his underlying email enquiry, which can comparably be classed as a challenge to treat, or maybe basically an enquiry. No offer has yet been made by either party (Fisher v Bell). The lodging at that point react to An's underlying enquiry illuminating An of an uncommon advancement that will qualifies him for the convenience at the cost of £200. This correspondence will unquestionably be considered an offer, as it shows an aim to be bound by the terms it says (a necessity that was first set out in the original case, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co). A then 'acknowledges' the offer by filling in the web based booking structure. The lodging have stipulated a methods for acknowledgment, by giving the web based booking structure which An is required to finish. This is, at that point, the inn's endorsed strategy for acknowledgment. A, through no blame of his own, can't finish this recommended strategy for acknowledgment, notwithstanding his endeavor. It is questionable whether this will influence his 'acknowledgment'. In Manchester Diocesan Council for Education v Commercial and General Investments Ltd, it was held that the recommended strategy for acknowledgment was by all account not the only conceivable one, gave the other technique was no less invaluable to the offeror. Except if the inn particularly expressed that the internet booking structure was the main technique for acknowledgment, A's posting of a printed copy would be legitimate. We go to the issue of correspondence of the acknowledgment to the offeror. Upon A's landing in the inn, he is educated that his booking structure did not arrive, and that there are no accessible rooms. It is a set up rule that an acknowledgment must be imparted to the offeror with the end goal for their to be an agreement (Holwell Securities Ltd v Hughes). In the present occasion, be that as it may, the acknowledgment has been posted by A. Following Household Fire Insurance v Grant, the acknowledgment is successfully imparted on posting (the purported 'postal run the show'). All together for this manage to apply, be that as it may, it more likely than not been sensible for A to utilize the post to acknowledge the offer (Quenerduaine v Cole). In this case, since the web based booking structure was not working, it appears to be likely that it is found to have been a sensible technique for acknowledgment. As of this point, at that point, the agreement exists amongst An and the inn. The terms of the agreement indicate that A will have convenience at the lodging at the cost of £200. He will later have the capacity to guarantee harms for rupture of agreement from the inn when they can't outfit him with a room at that rate. Before that emerges, be that as it may, there is a further contract which requires illumination. Upon An's entry, and revelation that his booking structure has not arrived, he undermines to sue the inn. The chief's reaction is to make an offer of settlement for £250. It is conceivable that accordingly, the lodging could guarantee the offer was made under undue impact. It is a set up standard of agreement law that where an agreement is incited by undue weight, it is voidable (Williams v Bayley). This implies if the lodging can set up that the supervisor made the offer under strain, the understanding could be scratched off. A consents to these terms, and a moment contract exists between the gatherings. A then spend his vacation at the inn and finishes the second contract. A thusly asserts for harms in the measure of £50. The lodging counter-claims for harms in light of the fact that A has ruptured the legally binding term not to seek after an activity against the inn. These two cases, in any case, allude to two unmistakable contracts, and both, doubtlessly, are true blue cases. It is conceivable that through framing the second get, the fair guideline of waiver became possibly the most important factor. That is, by making the second get, the gatherings (and A specifically), deferred the privilege to guarantee harms (Hughes v Metropolitan Railway). There is likewise the likelihood that by shaping the second get, the underlying contract was baffled, as it ended up difficult to complete on the grounds that the gatherings had along these lines contracted to a similar concession to various terms (Nickoll and Knight v Ashton Edridge and Co). Concerning the second get, the inn are inside their rights to guarantee harms for A's break. He has plainly broken his authoritative guarantee not to seek after an activity against the inn. There is an agreement decide that a petitioner can't recuperate harms in regard of a misfortune which is excessively remote a result of the litigant's break of agreement. On the off chance that the misfortunes stream normally from the break, which for this situation they would appear to, the misfortunes are recoverable (Hadley v Baxendale). The lodging, at that point, will have the capacity to recoup harms for A's rupture of the agreement term subject, obviously, to demonstrating that this understanding was a term fused into the second contract.>GET ANSWER