Technowave has always encouraged internships. The CEO believes that the company’s next new product could come from smart young employees who had enthusiasm and creativity in abundance, even if they had little or no experience in the industry. Every summer there is a flock of new interns on the Virginia campus. In the early days of the company, there would be only two or three summer interns, and Miles Rumer, the CEO, would personally take them under his wing. There was never any real plan for what they were to learn; they simply followed Miles around as he introduced them to various areas of the company, and after a few weeks, they were mostly on their own, moving around wherever there was extra work they could do. The intern program was now far more structured than it was in the past. There was an agreement with the university for a specific number of interns, and each came with a learning plan approved by his or her academic advisor. The interns were assigned to a mentor who supervised their work and was responsible for signing off on their learning plan at the end of the summer. The interns rotated through various departments for the first six weeks, and for the rest of the summer they were assigned where they were most needed. It seemed to work well for those participating, but some supervisors complained that nothing got done during the first six weeks of summer because they were busy babysitting a flock of “know-nothings.” But the same supervisors who complained also said that after the first couple of months, it was a sweet deal. By then, the interns knew most of the jobs, and there was a lot they could do to help out. In a 4-6 page paper, analyze the scenario and respond to the following questions: 1) Summarize the relevant facts of the case 2) What elements must be in place for there to be considered a learning program at an organization? a) How does an employer differentiate between an intern and an employee? b) What are the criteria for an intern? c) Must an employer pay wages to an intern? 3) What can the organization do to avoid any misconception around the intern program? 4) Can a school be liable if an intern is injured in the workplace? a) Is an intern entitled to workers’ compensation if injured on the job? b) Is it advisable to have the intern sign “hold-harmless” or indemnity agreements or releases of liability? 5) Identify and discuss three steps that will prevent the type of situation discussed in the scenario from happening again. The steps should be feasible, clear and legal.
Contract of a Mortgage Distributed: 23rd March, 2015 Last Edited: second January, 2018 Disclaimer: This paper has been presented by an understudy. This isn't a case of the work composed by our expert paper journalists. You can see tests of our expert work here. Any feelings, discoveries, conclusions or suggestions communicated in this material are those of the writers and don't really mirror the perspectives of UK Essays. Presentation A home loan is an agreement between two gatherings whereby the mortgagor utilizes his property as security for a credit from the mortgagee. As an end-result of the formation of an exclusive enthusiasm for the land for the mortgagee, the mortgagor gets an advance and in light of the terms of the home loan needs to pay the full total owed. If the mortgagor defaults on installment, the mortgagee is qualified for claim the sold property and recuperate the full entirety owed by the mortgagor for the most part through the offer of the property and by suing on the pledge to pay the full whole due. Jack and Margaret went into a home loan contract with Reading Bank whereby their marital home was utilized as security for the credit. As Jack has fallen into overdue debts with respect to the home loan installments, Reading Bank is currently looking to recuperate the full aggregate due under the home loan. Mortgagee's Rights The mortgagor basically has the total rights to sue the mortgagor on the agreement to reimburse in view of the home loan contract, to claim the sold property, to start and finish offer of the sold property, to practice dispossession and to delegate a recipient. In this undertaking we are just worried about the mortgagor's entitlement to ownership as Margaret and Jack are opposing ownership. By excellence of the manner by which legitimate home loans are made, the mortgagee is viewed as having a domain in land and this alongside the specialist of Four Maids v. Dudley Marshall and Ropaigelach v Barclays Bank gives Reading Bank the quick ideal to ownership "the minute the ink is dry on the mortgage." The privilege to take ownership is subject just to self constraint as communicated in contract and statutory confinements. Home loan records for the most part contain an agreement that would confine the mortgagee from taking ownership except if the mortgagor is financially past due, it gives the idea that a contention for self restriction pledges would fall flat. With respect to statutory confinements on the privilege of ownership a mortgagor, security for the mortgagor is managed by segment 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (AJA) as altered by Section 8 of the AJA 1973. By uprightness of segment 36 of the AJA the court is conceded an optional capacity to suspend, dismiss or defer an application for ownership of an abode house by the mortgagee on the off chance that it gives the idea that the mortgagor would be likely in a sensible timeframe to pay any aggregates due under the home loan. Regardless of whether Margaret and Jack can oppose ownership by uprightness of segment 36 would rely upon regardless of whether they fulfill the confinements of the impact of the statute. There is no debate with reference to whether the sold house being referred to is an abode house anyway the actualities of the case appear to demonstrate that as Reading bank did not make a difference for a court order and rather looked for self help as the bank just wrote to Jack and Margaret. It ought to be noticed that when looking for self improvement ownership Reading Bank risks perpetrating criminal offenses if there ought to be any individual legally dwelling on the premises at the time as they are liable to Section 6 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (if viciousness was utilized or had been undermined to be utilized). Anyway the realities are quiet, if Reading Bank did in certainty apply for a court arrange Margaret and Jack will have the capacity to depend on area 36 of the AJA and they would need to demonstrate on the adjust of probabilities that it is likely that the unpaid debts will be cleared inside a sensible period with a specific end goal to fulfill the court. Use of segment 36 isn't really a negative result as mortgagees don't need ownership or the cost of a deal. "An ownership arrange under area 36 gives the mortgagee whatever it could request: a request for ownership, but suspended and a request requiring the borrower to reimburse the unpaid debts and to adhere to a timetable for future payments." The caution with reference to whether to apply for a court arrange or not is left to Reading Bank. Undue Influence As a home loan is basically an agreement and the nearness of any vitiating variables, for example, undue impact or deception may make the whole assention void and in this way unenforceable. The court of request in Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. v. Aboody set out the order of cases undue impact into either class 1 of real undue impact whereby one gathering to the exchange can demonstrate on the certainties that the other party to the exchange applied undue impact through a demonstration straightforwardly did adding up to inappropriate weight. Also, class 2 of assumed undue influence which emerges when the complainant can set up the presence of a relationship of trust and certainty amongst her and the miscreant of such a nature, to the point that it is reasonable for assume that the transgressor manhandled the relationship in obtaining her consent to go into the decried transaction to oppose ownership Margaret would in all probability endeavor to contend that undue impact had in reality been worked out. The weight of evidence for undue impact lies on the petitioner throughout. Margaret would need to demonstrate undue impact, either really or with the advantage of an evidential deduction (an assumption), which remains un-disproved. As class 1 can't succeed the weight of confirmation would be on Margaret to depend on class 2 in that of the assumption of undue impact. Regal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No.2) demonstrates that to release the weight of evidence, the casualty needs to demonstrate that there was a relationship of trust and certainty with the asserted transgressor and that there exists an 'exchange that requires an explanation'. Applying the prerequisites of Etridge (no.2) for class 2 assumed undue impact to the realities of the case, it would be important for Margaret to demonstrate that there existed a cozy relationship of 'routine trust and certainty' between and Jack (the claimed miscreant) and herself. On the realities it creates the impression that Margaret 'rested trust and confidence' in Jack, the way that for a large number of years Margaret was a housewife bringing up five youngsters appears to show that Jack would be allowed to sit unbothered to deal with the monetary choices of the family unit and additionally the organization. On the supposition that Jack was in certainty responsible for the money related choices no doubt he would have an adequate position of influence to mishandle his impact over Margaret as is confirm by his activities of industriously pressuring her into marking the home loan in spite of her undeniable hesitance to re-contract the house which unmistakably shows a selling out of trust by looking to satisfy his own interests. When considering the exchange that calls for clarification it is presented that it is left to the tact of the courts, the judgment could go in any case. On one hand it can be contended the exchange is evidently disadvantageous to Margaret as she embraces a genuine monetary commitment, and consequently she by and by gets nothing. Then again it can be contended that Jack's business is the essential wellspring of the family wage and Margaret would commonly profit by having a vivacious enthusiasm for doing what she can to help the business. Anyway the realities call attention to that Margaret was hesitant to consent to the exchange and just did as such at a point where she was 'physically depleted' and 'tired of quarreling'. Jack had likewise distorted Margaret as to the real aggregate that should have been acquired, the sum was spoken to as £300,000 where else it was in truth for £500,000. It is presented that in light of this it the courts would no doubt derive that there was undue impact as the exchange might be logical on the premise that it has been acquired by the activity of undue impact by Jack. In the event that the courts induce that Margaret's assent has in truth been acquired by undue impact or deception, the bank may not depend on her evident assent except if it has justifiable reason motivation to trust that she comprehends the nature and impact of the exchange. The weight of verification will be on the bank to refute the assumption of undue impact. The Bank can invalidate the assumption by creating a clarification for the censured transaction. Ruler Nicholls in Etridge (no.2) demonstrates this should be possible if Reading Bank can demonstrate that Margaret got autonomous counsel from a specialist or outside advisor. For this situation, the certainties are quiet in the matter of regardless of whether Margaret got any autonomous exhortation. If the Margaret has acquired autonomous counsel it would be in the courts circumspection regarding regardless of whether the assumption can be disproved. Nonetheless if Margaret did not acquire free counsel it is presented that the courts will in all likelihood deduce that undue impact had been applied on Margaret by Jack corrupting her agree with respect to the condemned exchange. In the event that the courts in their circumspection deduce that undue impact had in certainty been applied then the onus of releasing the weight will be put on Reading Bank. The judgment of Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Barclays Bank v O'Brien seems to show that the spouse would just have the capacity to set aside the exchange on the grounds of undue impact if 'the outsider had real notice of the certainties offering ascend to her value'. The choice in Etridge (No.2) demonstrates that the courts will just regard the mortgagee to have notice of undue impact in each exchange where the surety and indebted person are in a non-business relationship and the credit made wa>GET ANSWER