I need help!!  I need to review the following case and discuss the facts, how would I decipher the facts out of this case.

VASSILKOVSKAV

. WOODFIELD NISSAN, INC.

830 N.E.2d 619 (Ill. App. 2005)

Nadejda Vassilkovska purchased used car from Woodfield Nissan. In an agreement separate from the purchase contract, Vassilkovska promised to arbitrate any claim against Woodfield instead of suing in court. Woodfield promised to arbitrate claims against Vassilkovska as well, but excluded several different types of claims from the agreement. In fact, the excluded claims were the only circumstances in which Woodfield would ever be likely to sue a customer. Subsequently, Vassilkovska sued Woodfield for misrepresenting the price of the car in a financing agreement. Woodfield argued that Vassilkovska was required to arbitrate the claim. The court had to address whether the arbitration agreement was valid.

JUSTICE GARCIA DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.: An agreement to arbitrate is treated like any other contract. . . . However, without a contract to arbitrate, there can be no forced arbitration. . . .

The plaintiff contends that the Arbitration Agreement is not a contract at all because any promise to arbitrate by Woodfield was illusory and, therefore, the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable because of the absence of the essential requirement of consideration to make out an enforceable contract. . . .

Woodfield asserts that the parties’ Arbitration Agreement was supported by consideration and argues its retention of certain rights does not invalidate that consideration.

The plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that Woodfield’s promise to arbitrate was “illusory” and there was no consideration because Woodfield “made sure that as to every conceivable right that it might want to press, the arbitration provision did not stand as a bar to [Woodfield’s] going to court.”

We agree with the plaintiff. A legally enforceable contract is an exchange, and the elements of a contract include offer, acceptance, and consideration. . . . “It is a basic tenet of contract law that in order for a promise to be enforceable against the promisor, the promisee must have given some consideration for the promise.” Gibson, 121 F.3d at 1130. Consideration is defined as a bargained-for exchange, whereby the promisor, here, the plaintiff, receives some benefit, or the promisee, here, Woodfield, suffers detriment. . . . Thus, in order for the plaintiff’s agreement to arbitrate, rather than to litigate, any claim against Woodfield, there must be some detriment to Woodfield, or some benefit to the plaintiff, that was bargained for in exchange for the plaintiff’s promise to arbitrate all disputes. Clearly, what is required is consideration, as with any contract . . . .

. . . Woodfield cannot point to its own promise to arbitrate in order to make enforceable the plaintiff’s promise to do likewise. . . . The Arbitration Agreement contains no promise on Woodfield’s part to submit claims to arbitration. . . . In fact, the Arbitration Agreement, by virtue of the exceptions outlined in it, leaves no claim that Woodfield would be required to submit to arbitration. . . . The language of the Arbitration Agreement makes clear that its purpose is to force the plaintiff to arbitrate any claim she may assert against Woodfield, while excluding Woodfield from that same promise. There is nothing in the Arbitration Agreement to suggest that Woodfield was required to forgo a judicial forum in favor of arbitration. Therefore, we conclude that the Arbitration Agreement itself did not contain consideration for the plaintiff’s promise in the form of a promise by Woodfield to submit disputes to arbitration. . . .

Page 244

We further note that Woodfield is correct in asserting that, often, consideration for one party’s promise to arbitrate is the other party’s promise to do the same. A mutual promise to arbitrate would be sufficient consideration to support an independent arbitration agreement. . . . Mutuality of obligation is required only to the extent that both parties to an agreement are bound or neither is bound; that is, if the requirement of consideration has been met, mutuality of obligation is not essential. The converse, of course, is where there is no consideration independent of the mutuality of obligation, then both parties to an agreement are bound or neither is bound. If there is no consideration and no mutuality of obligation, then neither party is bound.

Although both parties signed the Arbitration Agreement in which they “waived all rights to pursue any legal action in a court of law,” Woodfield exempted itself from arbitration by specifically securing its right to seek assistance in a court of law for a host of issues, primarily those dealing with the recoupment of money from the plaintiff. Specifically, Woodfield retained the right to pursue the following claims: (1) the plaintiff’s failure to pay according to the purchase contract; (2) a check not being honored by the plaintiff’s bank; (3) the plaintiff’s failure to provide good title on a trade-in vehicle; (4) the plaintiff’s misrepresentation concerning the loan amount due on any trade-in vehicle; (5) any claim relating to possession, repossession, or replevin of the automobile; and (6) any action to enforce any retail installment contract executed by the purchaser. Thus, the plaintiff, as purchaser, waives any right to sue Woodfield in a court of law, but Woodfield, as seller, retains the right to sue the plaintiff for a laundry list of reasons. . . .

Accordingly, we hold that where the agreement to arbitrate is itself a separate document, purporting to bind each party to the arbitration agreement, but subsequently creates a total exclusion of one party’s obligation to arbitrate, the obligation to arbitrate is illusory and unenforceable. . . . At the time the Arbitration Agreement in this case was signed, there was no consideration on the part of Woodfield to support the plaintiff’s promise to arbitrate and “waive any and all rights to pursue any legal action in a court of law.”

While we agree with Woodfield that “parties do not have to agree to identical obligations to nonetheless have a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement,” in this case, Woodfield’s promise to arbitrate was an empty one because Woodfield completely exempted issues that could arise from its sale of the automobile to the plaintiff. Effectively, in its Arbitration Agreement with the plaintiff, Woodfield enumerated all the reasons it would have to sue the plaintiff and, thus, exempted itself from the parties’ Arbitration Agreement. What claims, other than those related to the purchase of the plaintiff’s vehicle, would Woodfield pursue? We can think of no specific claim, and Woodfield was unable to provide us with a specific example, either in its brief or during questioning in oral argument, of a claim that it would be compelled to submit to arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement. . . .

We find that the Arbitration Agreement, as a separate and distinct contract between the parties, lacked consideration from Woodfield as it exempted itself from arbitrating all conceivable claims against the plaintiff. It is Woodfield that, by virtue of excluding every conceivable claim it may have had against the plaintiff from the arbitration process, has made the Arbitration Agreement a nullity, which, in effect, goes against Illinois’s public policy favoring arbitration. . . .

We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of Woodfield’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

I need to select to proper order

1. Been-Zeev, T., & Star, J. (2001). Intuitive mathematics: Theoretical and educational implications. In B. Torff & R. Sternberg

(Eds.), The Educational Psychology Series. Understanding and teaching the intuitive mind: Student and teacher learning (pp. 29-56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

2. Been-Zeev, T., Duncan, S. &Forbes, C. (2005). Stereotypes and math performance. In J. I. D. Campbell

(Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 235-249), New York, NY: Psychology Press.

3. Bender, W. N., Vail, C.O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers’ attitudes towar increased mainstreaming: Implementing effective

instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 87-84, 120. doi: 10. 1177/002221949502800203

4. Bender, W. N. (2005). Differentiating math instruction: Strategies that work for K-8 classrooms!

           Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

a.no editing needed (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4)

b.3, 4, 1, 2

c.3, 1, 4, 2

d.4, 3, 2, 1

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

I need to solve this problem and was given this code and these formulas to use as an example of the functions i need to use and need to call. I need to use an ODEint in addition to an fsolve to get my solution. This code is written and must be submitted in python.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

Font: Times New Roman, 12, 1 ½ spacing. 

The paper has to include a recognised documentation system for the citation of course literature and/or other sources. Please use one of the following systems: the Harvard system.

Note that plagiarism is not allowed. All suspected plagiarism is reported to the university and disciplinary actions may be taken.

Assignment 1

Assignment 2

multicultural policy/iesindigenous population

Assignment 3

Reading Books:

• Jenkins, R (2008). Social Identity, London: Routledge.

• Martinello, M. & Rath, J. (red). 2010. Selected Studies in International

Migration and Immigrant Incorporation Amsterdam. Amsterdam University Press

(640 pp.)

• Özkirimli, U. 2017 (2010). Theories of Nationalism. A critical introduction. London.

Macmillan. (288 pp.)

Articles and books available online:

• Amin, Ash “Ethnicity and the multicultural city: living with diversity” in Environment

and Planning A 2002, volume 34, p 959-980 (online)

• Blan, Judith R. and Brown, Eric “Du Bois and Diasporic Identity: The Veil and the

Unveiling Project” in Lyall Smith, Keri and Leavy, Patricia (ed) (2008) Hybrid

Identities: Theoretical and Empirical Examinations. Boston: Brill Academy Publisher

chapter 3, on line: Ebrary.

• Barry, Brian (1998) “The Limits of Cultural Politics”, Review of International Studies

24(3): 307-319.

• Barth, William Kurt (2008) On Cultural Rights: The Equality of Nations and the

Minority Legal Tradition (chapter 5, p 155-201): Martines Nijhoff Publisher [ebrary

reader].

• Darling Wolf, Fabienne “Disturbingly Hybrid or Distressingly Patriarchal? Gender

Hybridity in a Global Environment” Chapter 4 in Lyall Smith, Keri and Leavy,

Patricia (ed) (2008) Hybrid Identities: Theoretical and Empirical Examinations.

Boston: Brill Academy Publisher (on line: Ebrary)

• Elgenius, Gabriella (2011) ‘The politics of recognition: symbols, nation building and

rival nationalisms’, Nations and Nationalism (Volume 17, Issue 2).

• Hellström, Anders, Nilsson, Tom and Pauline Stoltz (2012) ‘Nationalism vs.

Nationalism: The Challenge of the Sweden Democrats in the Swedish Public Debate’,

Government and Opposition (Volume 47, Issue 2).

• Joppke, Christian (2004) “The retreat of multiculturalism in the liberal state”, The

British Journal of Sociology, Volume 55, Issue 2, pp. 237-257.

• Kukathas, Chandran (1998) “Liberalism and Multiculturalism: The Politics of

Indifference”, Political Theory 26(5): 686-699.

• Kymlicka, Will (1996) “Interpreting Group Rights”, The Good Society 6(2): 8-11.

• Kymlicka, Will (1998) “Introduction: An Emerging Consensus?”, Ethical Theory and

Moral Practice 1(2): 143-157.

• Kymlicka, Will (2010) “Testing the Liberal Multicultural Hypothesis: Normative

Theories and Social Science Evidence”, Canadian Journal of Political Science 43(2):

257-271.

• Margalit, Avishai and Halbertal, Moshe (2004/1994) “Liberalism and the Right to

Culture”, Social Research 71(3): 529-548.

• Medda-Windischer, Roberta “Changing Paradigm in the Traditional Dichotomy of

Old and New Minorities” (p195-218) in Studies in International Minority and Group

Rights, Volume 1 : Double Standards Pertaining to Minority Protection (2010) (Ed)

Henrard, Kristin: Brill Academic Publishers [ebrary reader].

• Moller Okin, Susan (1998) “Feminism and Multiculturalism: Some Tensions”, Ethics

108(4): 661-684.

• Pantea, Maria-Carmen: From ‘Making a Living’ to ‘Getting ahead’: Roma Women’s

Experiences of Migration in Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Volume 38:8

2012 p1251-1268 (online).

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"

I need to summarize it to 3~4 sentences

Privatizing the Military

The voluntary US military is, in many ways, a social engineer- ing project. The public understands the military as a service organization, dedicated to protecting the country’s interests. Yet, when recruits sign up, they are promised training and job opportunities. Individual motivations vary tremendously, but many are enticed by the opportunity to travel the world, partici- pate in a cause with a purpose, and get the heck out of Dodge. Everyone expects basic training to be physically hard, but few recognize that some of the most grueling aspects of signing up have to do with the diversification project that is central to the formation of the American military.

When a soldier is in combat, she must trust her fellow sol- diers with her life. And she must be willing to do what it takes to protect the rest of her unit. In order to make that possible, the military must wage war on prejudice. This is not an easy task. Plenty of generals fought hard to fight racial desegregation and to limit the role of women in combat. Yet, the US military was desegregated in 1948, six years before Brown v. Board forced desegregation of schools. And the Supreme Court ruled that LGB individuals could openly serve in the military before they could legally marry.

Morale is often raised as the main reason that soldiers should 10 not be forced to entrust their lives to people who are different than them. Yet, time and again, this justification collapses under broader interests to grow the military. As a result, commanders are forced to find ways to build up morale across difference, to actively and intentionally seek to break down barriers to teamwork, and to find a way to gel a group of people whose demographics, values, politics, and ideologies are as varied as the country’s.

In the process, they build one of the most crucial social infrastructures of the country. They build the diverse social fabric that underpins democracy.

Tons of money was poured into defense after 9/11, but the number of people serving in the US military today is far lower than it was throughout the 1980s. Why? Starting in the 1990s and accelerating after 9/11, the US privatized huge chunks of the military. This means that private contractors and their employees play critical roles in everything from providing food services to equipment maintenance to military housing. The impact of this on the role of the military in society is significant. For example, this undermines recruits’ ability to get training to develop critical skills that will be essential for them in civilian life. Instead, while serving on active duty, they spend a much higher amount of time on the front lines and in high-risk battle, increasing the likeli- hood that they will be physically or psychologically harmed. The impact on skills development and job opportunities is tremen- dous, but so is the impact on the diversification of the social fabric.

Private vendors are not engaged in the same social engi- neering project as the military and, as a result, tend to hire and fire people based on their ability to work effectively as a team. Like many companies, they have little incentive to invest in helping diverse teams learn to work together as effectively as possible. Building diverse teams—especially ones in which members depend on each other for their survival—is extremely hard, time-consuming, and emotionally exhausting. As a result, private companies focus on “culture fit,” emphasize teams that get along, and look for people who already have the necessary skills, all of which helps reinforce existing segregation patterns.

The end result is that, in the last 20 years, we’ve watched one of our major structures for diversification collapse without anyone taking notice. And because of how it’s happened, it’s also connected to job opportunities and economic opportunity for many working- and middle-class individuals, seeding resent- ment and hatred.

 

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"