Empirical Investigation of Deception †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Empirical Investigation of Deception. Answer: Introduction: Divorce or separations in a marriage situation is an issue affecting characters in this position due to the dilemma they face during the sharing of assets and finances after divorce(Chiappori 2002). Depending on the time couples spend in marriages, financial sharing becomes an issue to consider upon dissolution. Every party should benefit from the separation especially if they do not have kids who complicate the situation Marriage agreements in the event of divorce depend on the time made and the kind of contribution each of the parties. However, the law states that in case of a divorce, the couple making more money regardless of their gender is mandated to contribute for spouse maintenance to ensure the wellbeing of the lower paid. It is the right of each partner to benefit from a divorce situation by the fair sharing of properties and finances(Constable 2003). There are therefore some agreements and contracts signed before or after marriage to secure the parties even in the event of a loss. If for example the deal is approved before marriage, the union might be considered as a contractual marriage(Chiappori 2002). Agreements after the wedding are different in such a way that the first intention was not money and therefore the court can be fair when dealing with financial disputes. In the case of Susan, it is her right to ask for more financial support from her advice upon divorce as he earns more and also possesses more assets. Despite the agreement to take a certain amount of money after divorce, she is entitled to more. It is not even under the law to have such like an agreement as marriage is a great responsibility that deserves more appreciation under the law(Constable 2003). The main reason as to why Tom might have asked for such a commitment is because he knows that his wife is worth more upon divorce and did not want to give more Marriage agreements provide more benefit to the couple with less wealth as they have to be supported in the case of a divorce by getting some share of the finances owned by their partner according to the law. Consumer purchase rights act to protect a buyer from binding themselves to a deal before signing any contracts or making the first payments. They can even decide to change their minds and request a different item or cancel their order even after starting their payments(Reform 2010). An individual becomes responsible for an item when they receive it safely from the supplier or seller. During the process of deal-making or transportation, the company is responsible for anything that might happen to their products as they would have to suffer any profits or losses(Reform 2010). When a client has booked a product at lets say $2, and another one comes before the consumer get their order with a higher offer like $4, then the business is allowed to take up this new order. The same way for the consumer, they can change their minds or get a better offer with another supplier after they have already ordered with the previous business. Neither the buyer or the seller is legally limited to have a change of mind even after agreeing except if there is already a down payment or full payment of the goods(Jensen 2005). Steve has a right to choose a product somewhere else despite the improvements that Jason had done on the car to meet his demands. The visits were only unofficial, and there were no deals made or contracts made concerning the purchase(Jensen 2005). It is possible that Steve goes a better deal on the same, or changed preference. Since he had not paid any money for the product, then he was not bound to buying that product. Consumer rights Act protects the buyer from getting forced to purchase a product just because the supplier claim to have to spend a lot to meet their demands before they made a payment. The law protects any individual who gets hurt from a careless practice from either another individual or an organization. Activities involving food should always be conducted under the highest hygiene and consideration to prevent any adverse issues that might result from carelessness(Draper 2002). If you happen to prepare food that is of a contrary impact on the users, then you are held accountable for what might happen to them. So many people have used hotels for food poisoning or food-related diseases as a result of their services and obtained justice and compensation from a court of law(Ergnl 2013). It might, however, depend on whether the party to blame had an idea that their operations could hurt the recipients. Carl was wrong to cook with no experience of cleaning the type of Fish which ended up poisoning his fried Harry. If Harry wants to file a lawsuit against his friend, then he has all the rights because such actions can lead to worse situations later hospitalization, like death(Draper 2002). Conclusion Every consumer is protected against careless activities from others which might end up harming them by regulations that allow them to follow legal procedures and obtain justice. A business should ensure that their advertisement of a particular product matches the properties of resulting item. Exaggerated advertisements or branding might raise consumer expectations and motivate them to make a purchase only to be disappointed(Beauchamp 2004). The law allows for compensation if a consumer is previously misled by a products branding or advertisement. That means that the product they get at the end of the day is not the one they ordered for as there was a misleading information(Grazioli 2000). The public or a specific individual can decide to sue the company for false advertisements and low-quality delivery. Bettys rights were violated because she ordered for a high quality phone with features that were interesting to her only to receive lower than that(Beauchamp 2004). If she is not ready to take this product delivered, then she has a right to push for a refund because the law protects consumers from deception. Apple is in danger of business misconduct because their actions can be described as deception which is against the ethics of operations. References Beauchamp, T.L, 2004, Ethical theory and business. Chiappori, P.A., 2002, ' Marriage market, divorce legislation, and household labor supply. ', Journal of political Economy, pp. 110(1), pp.37-72. Constable, N, 2003, ' A transnational perspective on divorce and marriage: Filipina wives and workers', Global Studies in Culture and Power, pp. 10(2), pp.163-180. Draper, A., 2002, ' Food safety and consumers: constructions of choice and risk. ', Social Policy Administration, vol 36(6), pp. pp.610-625. Ergnl, B, 2013, 'Consumer awareness and perception to food safety: a consumer analysis.', Food control, vol 32(2), pp. pp.461-471. Grazioli, S.A., 2000, 'Perils of Internet fraud: An empirical investigation of deception and trust with experienced Internet consumers.', vol 30(4), no. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, , pp. pp.395-410. Jensen, S, 2005, ' A legislative history of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005', pp. 79, p.485. Reform, D.F., 2010, ' Consumer Protection Act. Public Law', , pp. 111, p.203.