Business Contracts and Agreement Discussion

December 2, 2022

Business Contracts and Agreement Discussion

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Business Contracts and Agreement Discussion

[Order Now]

Fix the assignment with the feedback attached here is original question

George Costanza has been offered a position as CEO of Kramerica, a large multinational electronics corporation. Costanza and the president of the Kramerica board, Cosmo Kramer, meet to discuss the terms of the agreement. They sketch out a compensation plan that includes a hefty salary and stock options worth several million dollars. In the spirit of cooperation, Kramer suggests that they use the same attorney to draw the agreement and agrees to have Kramerica pick up the tab. They set up a meeting with Elaine Benes, a well-respected local business attorney.

In the initial meeting, Kramer tells Benes, “We have already outlined all the key factors in George’s contract and just need you to help us formalize the terms. Now I want you to consider yourself as acting for George and for Kramerica, but Kramerica will be solely responsible for your fees. So what do you say, can you help us move this thing forward?”

Benes responds that she would be happy to help them out. She explains that she charges $185 an hour for her services and provides Kramer with a written fee agreement. The parties then discuss the specifics of their deal.

Shortly, thereafter, she phones Costanza to clarify some of the terms. In particular, she wants to know how long the vesting period is supposed to be for the stock options. He says, “Well. To tell you the truth, we never really discussed that. Make it two years. The fact is, I have already committed to move to Sydney in two-and-a-half years when my daughter graduates from law school here. I plan to work for another company over there. Please don’t mention that to Cosmo. It could kill our deal.”

[Order Now]

Benes then calls Kramer and asks him what he thinks the vesting period is supposed to be. Kramer says, “I guess we forgot to spell that out in our prior discussions, but Kramerica’s standard vesting policy is 20 percent after three years, another 30 percent after five years, and then the balance after seven years. Just put that in.”

After talking to Kramer, Benes decides, in fairness to both parties, to “split the difference.” She writes up the agreement and presents it to both parties to sign.

Has Benes acted properly under the rules of professional conduct? Discuss.

Business Contracts and Agreement Discussion

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.