REG Study Group October November 2013 - Page 117

Viewing 15 replies - 1,741 through 1,755 (of 3,212 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #480956
    terranz
    Member

    ah the key is vertical price fixing. now i know, it is called an exception. tricking wording for answer choice

    #480985
    terranz
    Member

    ah the key is vertical price fixing. now i know, it is called an exception. tricking wording for answer choice

    #480958
    terranz
    Member

    @insiyah have you gone into great detail for circular 230?

    its not called out specifically in ninja notes, but some parts of 230 is in there right?

    #480987
    terranz
    Member

    @insiyah have you gone into great detail for circular 230?

    its not called out specifically in ninja notes, but some parts of 230 is in there right?

    #480960
    Kenada
    Member

    Under the law of agency, the ratification doctrine

    A. Is not applicable to situations in which the party claiming to act as the agent for another has no express or implied authority to do so.

    B. Is designed to apply to situations in which the principal was originally incompetent to have made the contract himself, but who, upon becoming competent, ratifies.

    C. Applies only if the principal expressly ratifies the contract made on his behalf within a reasonable time in writing.

    D. Requires the principal to ratify the entire act of the agent, and the ratification is retroactive.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

    #480989
    Kenada
    Member

    Under the law of agency, the ratification doctrine

    A. Is not applicable to situations in which the party claiming to act as the agent for another has no express or implied authority to do so.

    B. Is designed to apply to situations in which the principal was originally incompetent to have made the contract himself, but who, upon becoming competent, ratifies.

    C. Applies only if the principal expressly ratifies the contract made on his behalf within a reasonable time in writing.

    D. Requires the principal to ratify the entire act of the agent, and the ratification is retroactive.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

    #480962
    Kenada
    Member

    Yes i have done the 230 circular. Its one of the first chapters I did, so I have to refresh my memory on that. At the moment doing Agency questions to refresh my memory.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

    #480991
    Kenada
    Member

    Yes i have done the 230 circular. Its one of the first chapters I did, so I have to refresh my memory on that. At the moment doing Agency questions to refresh my memory.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

    #480964
    terranz
    Member

    I say D. for a principal to ratify it has to be for the entire agreement made by agency. and generally, its done after the fact the agent has made the agreement he prob shouldn't have, but then the principal is ok w/ it.

    #480993
    terranz
    Member

    I say D. for a principal to ratify it has to be for the entire agreement made by agency. and generally, its done after the fact the agent has made the agreement he prob shouldn't have, but then the principal is ok w/ it.

    #480966
    Kenada
    Member

    Answer (D) is correct.

    For a principal to ratify an unauthorized act of an “agent,” the entire act must be ratified. Otherwise, a principal could pick and choose from unauthorized acts by “agents,” which would be unfair to the third parties with whom the “agent” is dealing. Ratification is also retroactive (relates back) to the time the “agent” entered into the contract.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

    #480995
    Kenada
    Member

    Answer (D) is correct.

    For a principal to ratify an unauthorized act of an “agent,” the entire act must be ratified. Otherwise, a principal could pick and choose from unauthorized acts by “agents,” which would be unfair to the third parties with whom the “agent” is dealing. Ratification is also retroactive (relates back) to the time the “agent” entered into the contract.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

    #480968
    terranz
    Member

    yay got one right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    #480997
    terranz
    Member

    yay got one right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    #480970
    Kenada
    Member

    Airline has three cockpit positions: flight officer, copilot, and pilot. It has a policy of requiring flight officers to advance to the post of pilot or be fired, a progression that takes about 10 to 15 years. The FAA requires retirement at age 60. Applicant is 45 years old and otherwise fully qualified. Airline rejects her application on the basis of its policy of not hiring flight officers over the age of 30. Applicant files suit. At trial, evidence is presented showing that the incidence of aviation accidents decreases as a pilot gains experience and that the best experience for Airline’s purposes is acquired by flying in Airline’s three cockpit positions. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Applicant will most likely

    A. Win because the act applies to persons who are at least 40 but not yet 65.

    B. Lose because Airline has a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense.

    C. Win because the BFOQ defense applies only to discrimination based on sex, religion, and national origin.

    D. Lose because age is a permissible basis for discrimination.

    FAR 05/27/14; 786/110 - Done !

Viewing 15 replies - 1,741 through 1,755 (of 3,212 total)
  • The topic ‘REG Study Group October November 2013 - Page 117’ is closed to new replies.