Economic and Eithcs of engineering!

Hi there ;)

so I have this exam that I need to finish in two days from now.

please please read the questions before sending me an agreement. Please make sure u know how to do it ( I need A+ ) please

it's really important paper. 

The answers length ( just really a breif summary describing  is enough ) 

PART III: Short Essay Questions (4points each, total 20 marks)

Scenario: Cooper offers to purchase Brant’s coin collection for $5,000, and Brant accepts Cooper’s offer. Assuming that the contract has met all of the requirements for a valid contract, answer the questions raised in each of the following situations.

Situation #1:

The contract is in writing.  Brant is a minor and Cooper is an adult. Brant gives the coin collection to Cooper and receives the $5,000.  Brant then has a change of heart and wants to recover his coin collection from Cooper. Can he do so?  Explain.  What if Brant was a minor at the time of the sale but did not decide that he wanted the coin collection back until a year after he had turned eighteen? 

 ( Your answer ) 

Situation #2:

The contract is oral, and both parties are adults.  Brant creates a memorandum of the transaction, indicating the names of the parties, the date, and the exact terms of the contract; Brant places the memorandum in his file.  Cooper refuses to go through with the agreement.  Is the contract enforceable against Cooper? 

 ( Your answer ) 

Situation #3:

The contract is in writing, and both parties are adults.  Although Brant represents to Cooper that the coin collection is worth at least $5,000, in fact, Brant has just had it appraised and knows that it is worth only $2,000.  Cooper later learns that the collection is worth only $2,000 and wants to sue Brant.  What remedies are available to Cooper?

 ( Your answer ) 

Situation # 4:

The contract is in writing and both parties are adults.  Cooper pays Brant $5,000, but Brant, having had a change of heart, decides to keep the collection and offers to return the $5,000 to Cooper.  Cooper wants the coin collection not the money. In Cooper’s suit against Brant, will the court grant the equitable remedy of specific performance? Explain.

 ( Your answer ) 

Situation #5:

The contract is in writing, and both parties are adults.  Cooper takes possession of the coin collection and promises to Brant the $5,000 in three weeks.  Brant, in urgent need of money, borrows $5,000 from his friend Viva and assigns his rights to the $5,000 Cooper owes him to Viva in return for the loan.  Viva notifies Cooper of the assignment.  Cooper pays Brant the $5,000 on the date stipulated in their contract.  Brant refuses to give the money to Viva, and Viva sues Cooper.  Is Cooper obliged to pay Viva $5,000 also?  Discuss. 

 ( Your answer ) 

PART IV: Case Study Analysis (6 points each, total 30 marks).

Case # 1

Peerless Casualty Co. v. Housing Authority of the City of Hazelhurst, 228 F. 2d 376 (5th Cir.1955)

Background: The contractor Ivey submitted a bid in the amount of $463,733.  It was in response to an invitation for bids that contained the following requirements: 

Ivey’s bid was low and was accompanied by a bid bond.  On the day following the opening of bids, Ivey discovered an error (which was not obvious), he advised the owner in writing of the error, and withdrew its bid. The owner had not yet accepted the bid but had adopted a motion to accept “subject to approval of the Public Housing Administration.” The owner called on Ivey’s bid bond and contracted with the next lowest bidder.  However, the surety for Ivey’s bond, disputes the owner’s action arguing that there was no liability on the part of the bidder Ivey and hence none on the part of the surety. 

Task: Carefully analyze the positions of the parties in this dispute. What legal issues are involved in this dispute? Who should prevail and why? Would it have made any difference to the owner’s position, if it had paid a nominal sum to each bidder to hold the bid irrevocable for a fixed period as directed in the invitation for bids? What, in fact,were the implications of the owner’s adoption of a motion to accept subject to approval of the Housing Authority?

 ( Your answer )  

Case # 2

City of Seattle v. Dyad Construction Inc. ( 565 P.2d 423)

Background: This dispute occurred over a contract involving a sewer line project.  The contract included provisions that stated that delays were to be compensated” for a period equivalent to work time lost.” The sewer line was being installed along Seola Beach, with the trench being dug through sand and gravel in tidal flats as staked out by the City survey crew.  The path of the trench ran between the base of a bluff on one side and the tidal flats on the other. The work could be performed only during favorable low tide.  During the trenching operation a landslide occurred behind the backhoe performing the excavation work. Dyad stopped work and asked the City to redesign the alignment of the pipeline so that it was further out on the beach.  The Washington State Labor and Industries safety inspector also considered the project unsafe.  Eight months later the City approved a new plan for the sewer line location.  The project was completed 4 months behind the original schedule. Dyad sued for damages caused by the delay, which occurred through no fault of its own.  The City claimed that the contract was clear and that the contractor was entitled only to a time extension.  Dyad claimed that the provision dealt with only foreseeable delays at the time the contract was signed.  Not only were the delays that were encountered unforeseeable, they were of unreasonable length.  

Task: Carefully analyze the positions of the parties in this dispute.  Be sure to succinctly identify the issue(s) in dispute.  If you were the presiding judge, in this case how would you rule and why?  

 ( Your answer ) 

CASE # 3:

Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Co. v. Lentz, 9 P.2d 408( Ariz. S.C. 1932)

Background: A contractor entered into a written agreement to construct a building according to plans a specifications prepared by the Architect, Nolan.  It was expressly stipulated that the owner should not be liable for any extras or additions to the contract unless pursuant to a written order signed by the owner or a written order from the architect stating that the owner has authorized the change.  

The architect orally approved some changes which were performed by the contractor.  The contractor seeking to recover for these extras filed a court action arguing that the architect was acting as agent for the owner, and therefore the owner was bound by the requests for extras made by the architect.  

Task: If you were the presiding judge, how would you rule in this case and why?

Would your decision have been different if the architect had signed the orders and stated that the owner had authorized them? In the latter case, would the owner have had any recourse? Explain.

Does the contractor have any recourse against the architect?

How would the contractor prove that the owner had waived the provision of the contract?

 ( Your answer ) 

Case # 4

Situation: John, a consulting soil engineer, submitted a draft report on the soil conditions at a plant site to his client’s chief engineer.  The chief engineer read the draft and indicated to John that he wanted several portions of the report changed so that the planned building could be designed with smaller, less expensive foundation.  The chief engineer told John the allowable soil pressure value he wanted him to recommend in the final report.   

Following this meeting John went back to his office to decide what to do.  He believes he has the four alternatives as follows:   

Task:Carefully analyze John’s dilemma and explain which, if any, of the four alternatives listed above John should take. In outlining your reasoning be sure to identify the applicable stipulations of the NSPE Code of Ethics.

 ( Your answer ) 

Case # 5

Situation:  The following incident allegedly occurred in the aircraft industry.  A mechanical engineer from Company A had conducted tests of a certain aircraft tail assembly configuration in his company’s wind tunnel and knew that devastating vibrations could occur with that configuration under certain circumstances, leading to destruction of the aircraft.  Later, at a professional meeting, Company A’s engineer heard an engineer from Company B, a competitor, describe a tail assembly configuration for one of Company B’s new aircraft which would run the risk of producing just the kind of vibrations which Company A’s engineer had discovered in his tests.  However, the engineer from Company B does not seem to be aware of this potential problem.  The engineer from Company A has an obligation, both as a matter of morals and of law, to maintain company confidentiality regarding Company A’s proprietary knowledge.  On the other hand, engineers are supposed to bear a responsibility for public safety and welfare.  If the engineer from Company A remains silent, Company B may not discover the possibility of the existence of destructive vibrations until a dreadful crash occurs, killing many people. 

Tasks:Discuss this case, making sure that among other things you address the following questions:

i) What would you do if you were the engineer from Company A?   

ii) What follow-up action would you take if your initial action was unsuccessful?  

iii) What are the limits (if any) beyond which you would not go? 

iv) Justify your reasoning by reference to the applicable clauses of the NSPE Code of Ethics.    

( Your answer is here ) 

PART V (a):   10 marks

Situation: An electrical contractor put together an estimate on an addition to a country club.  The bid that was submitted to the general contractor on this cost reimbursable contract was $2,160,000 that represented a combination of $960, 000 in labor and $1,200,000 in material costs. Before a formal sub-contract agreement was signed, the project got delayed due to financing complications.  The project was delayed for nearly a year.  Later the general contractor asked the electrical contractor if the firm was still interested in working on the project.  The response was that the firm was still interested, but that cost of materials had risen by $80,000 and that the bid should be commensurately be increased. This was accepted by the general contractor, who indicated that a formal subcontract agreement for $ 2,240,000 would be forth coming in the mail. Harry was the estimator was the estimator for the electrical contractor who negotiated this contract with the general contractor.  Harry was approached by Aaron, a fellow estimator, who was concerned about the contract pricing arrangement.  Aaron said that he had reexamined the estimate and discovered that the labor for one part of the project had been counted twice, resulting in an extra $60,000 in the bid.  Harry said that this was just fortuitous for the company.  The general contractor had accepted the original bid with the extra $60,000 in it and the new contract was no different.  Aaron was suggesting that the $80,000 increase in material cost should be balanced against the $60,000 inflated amount in the labor costs.  Harry did not agree. 

Task: Discuss this case. In particular how should this contracting company handle this dilemma? Is it unethical for the company to reap the benefits of its own estimating error?  Which stipulations of the NSPE code of Ethics are applicable? 

 ( Your answer is here ) 

PART V(b):  10 marks

List at least five distinct attributes that you believe distinguish the professions from other occupations. 

Is engineering a profession?  How does it fit the social-contract model of the professions?

What is the role of licensure in the engineering profession? How important  is the commitment to life-long learning in the engineering profession and why

( YOUR ANSWER )