Xxxx vs. Xxxxxx’x Restaurants, Inc. This is an arbitration involving age and/or workers compensation retaliation. Discovery has commenced.
Xxxx vs. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxx-Xxxxxxx (1998) introduced a thought experiment designed to demonstrate that the knowledge argument does not lead to an ontological conclusion that is incompatible with physicalism even if the ability hypothesis is unsuccessful, presenting another way of refuting Xxxxxxx’x proposal. Xxxxxxxx, just like Xxxx, lives in a black-and-white room and has never seen colour, not even in dreams or altered states of consciousness (Nida-Rümelin 1998: 52). However, before being released, she agrees to participate in a psychological experiment: she will not leave the room she spent her whole life in, but the interior decoration will be changed so that it is now full of artificial objects (e.g. furniture) of all colours (Nida- Rümelin 1998: 53). She is not allowed to see natural objects, such as ripe tomatoes or photographs of landscapes, since she would know what their colour is, based on her knowledge of physical facts. During the course of the experiment, she is presented with slides showing her the colours red, blue, green, and yellow (Nida-Rümelin 1998: 52). She especially likes the red slide and incorrectly identifies it as the colour of the sky, since she has been told that the sky is beautiful. While Xxxxxxxx nonphenomenally believes the statement ‘the sky appears blue to normally sighted people’, she phenomenally believes that the sky appears red to normally sighted people since looking at the sky must be as beautiful as looking at the red slide (Nida- Rümelin 1998: 53-5). That is, she uses the word ‘blue’ to refer to what she sees when she looks at the red slide, believing that it is the colour of the sky. When Xxxxxxxx is released and finally sees the sky, she understands her mistake and correctly states that the sky is blue, in the usual sense, realising that she conflated the two colours. While she was looking at the slides, she gained the capacity to form new concepts about colour experiences, to ask questions, form new (if false) hypotheses, etc. After her release, she acquires knowledge about the correct application of phenomenal concepts. So, the Xxxxxxxx argument distinguishes between these two steps in her epistemic process (Xxxx-Xxxxxxx & O Conaill 2019):
Xxxx vs. Xxxxxx Facts: Xxxx and Xxxxxx were drinking. Xxxx wants to buy land from Xxxxxx. Xxxxxx agrees to sell the land to Xxxx and writes down the “contract” on a piece of paper/napkin. Xxxxxx then claims it was a “joke” Ruling: Court said Xxxxxx and Xxxx formed a legally enforceable contract Significance: It met an objective standard Xx. Xxxxxx “I was intoxicated” Court “you weren’t that intoxicated because you could write out the contract” Roto-Lith Ltd. Vs. X.X. Xxxxxxxx & Co. Facts: Plaintiff mails an order form to defendant ie “offer” Defendant prepares and mails both an acknowledgment and an invoice Documents disclaimed warranties related to the goods Plaintiff accepts goods but states the disclaimer of the warranty is not valid Ruling: Court says Plaintiff became bound by disclaimer because they accepted the goods Significance: Acceptance of goods = Acceptance of contract Xxxxxxx vs. Xxxxx Xxxxx Food Corporation Facts: Plaintiff was accused of smoking marijuana on the job at Xxxxx Xxxxx Plaintiff alleged the firing was not in accordance with the handbook Ruling: South Carolina Appellate Court states there is a duty of good faith and fair dealing required in this situation even though it was an employment contract Significance: The firing was not in good faith. They can and should fire but need to follow their process Chapter 8
Xxxx vs. General Manufactured Housing, Inc., Southern Lifestyle Homes, Inc., and Green Tree Financial Corporation Court of Common Plea, Second Judicial Circuit of South Carolina Civil Action File No. 95-CP-02-732 This cause of action is a warranty type claim. This cause of action is being defended by Fox & Verenes of Aiken, South Carolina. This cause of action is in the discovery period. THREATENED LITIGATION
Xxxx vs. Xxxxx & Xxxx Mfg. Co., Michigan Department of Civil Rights, Case No. 117813-EM20, relates to a claim of discrimination on the basis of a disability. Claimant had pursued and received a workers' compensation award for a shoulder pain that turned out to result from a torn rotator cuff. Claimant brought a concurrent claim with the MDCR owing to her belief that she was eligible for a return to work and, also, that she could be accommodated. Her initial claim was denied by MDCR and she has petitioned for a redetermination. The Company vigorously contests this claim and perceives no merit in it. Xxxxxx Xxxxx vs. Xxxxx & Xxxx Mfg. Co., Bureau of Workers' Disability Compensation, (Michigan), relates to a claim of work related injury that has been handled on a voluntary basis. The last petition in this matter related to the establishment of a new date of injury. Claimant has affected a return to work under light duty status. The Bureau retains jurisdiction. EXHIBIT D LIST OF EXISTING LIENS ---------------------- Blanket filing by Xxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx, as nominee and agent of the Landlords under the Skokie Lease dated August 20, 1990 EXHIBIT E SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY --------------------------- State in Which Stock of Stock Owned State of Business is Each Class by the Company Incorporation Conducted Outstanding Company ------- ------------- --------- ----------- ------- Xxxxx & Xxxx Michigan Michigan, Common None Manufacturing Co. California 2,919,845 shares Class B Common - 2,402,784 shares Modar, Inc. Michigan Michigan Common - 100% 8,581 shares Xxxxx Michigan Michigan, Common - 100% Manufacturing Co. Indiana 1,000 shares Xxxxx & Xxxx Ontario, Quebec, Common - 100% Canada Inc. Canada Ontario 100,000 shares Preferred - 5,589,565 shares CERTIFICATE OF XXXXX & XXXX MANUFACTURING COMPANY The undersigned, Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxx, President and Chief Executive officer of Xxxxx & Xxxx Manufacturing Company, a Michigan corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:
