Business Law Final Exam - Assignment Example

Business Law Final Exam Scenario E-Z Rid can be made responsible for its actions under department of labor and National Labor Relations Board. E-Z torts resulted from negligence, which is careless in legal terms; the company failed to act in a way that it is obligated to behave and a result Elmo suffered, E-Z is thus reliable. E-Z was responsible for the tort of interference with prospective advantage, also referred to as interference with prospective economic advantage and interference with prospective contractual relationship (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 184). Jo sent a letter to Extracto which was negative and which has an untrue account of Elmo work record causing Elmo to lose the job. This was an interference with prospective contractual relationship. Business usually come up with many schemes for attracting customers, which is a good, part of competition, however it is usually a tort when a business endeavors to improve its place in the market by interfering with another business in an improper and unreasonable way. E-Z acted in an unreasonable and improper way towards Extracto. The court can find proper interference in this case. The existence of an underlying contract is not needed for this tort; however, Emo can show intentional and improper interference by E-Z that prevents the formation of contract between him and a third party- Extracto. Interference with another person contractual relation is tortuous if there is a reasonable likelihood and probability that a contract would have resulted (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 184) If Elmo sued Jo and E-Z based on the lies, he would base his claim on theory of tortious interference also known as intentional interference with contractual relation. This theory states that improperly interfering with the performance of a contract is a tort. To recover under this theory, Elmo should show that Jo and E-Z acted inappropriately and with no privilege, acted deliberately and with wickedness with the intention to harm-to cost him the job with Extracto, to induce a third party (Extracto) not to go into a business relationship him and caused him financial injury (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 183). If Elmo sues Jo over the ad, he would be suing for compensation of damages because of fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation. Jo statement that Elmo had embezzled money from clients in the past was not true and sought to discredit him to clients. The statement was a misrepresentation of fact and intention. The statement was made fraudulently for the purpose of and with expectation of inducing other people (clients) to act in reliance and with justifiable reliance by the recipient causing loss (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 182). Elmo’s reaction to Jo’s one-page advertisement may subject him to legal action because of intentional interference with Jo’s personal rights. When a person is placed in fear of offensive contact or bodily harm, it constitutes intentional interference with personal rights (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 175). Elmo action against Jo is battery and it was an intentional tort against Jo. Battery under tort law comprises of unintentional and unallowed touching of another. The touching may involve just mere touch that is offensive or an act of violence that causes serious injury. Scenario 2 Lulene and Ellen had an express contract. A contract is usually express if there is a verbal or written intent by the parties to enter into a legally binding agreement (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 263). The basic constituents of a contract are offer and acceptance-agreement, contractual capacity, consideration genuine consent and, legality. Lulene made an offer, which Ellen accepted. Lulene is giving up something while Ellen is getting something (Lemon pies) (consideration). The two parties had the legal capacity to create a contract. The subject matter of the contract was lawful (legality) and the two parties were free to enter into the bargains of their choice (legality and genuine consent). This means that the contract between the two parties was valid. Lulene may sue Ellen for repudiation or anticipatory breach. This kind of breach occurs is one party to a contract indicates its inability or lack of desire to perform the contract before the performance of a contract takes place (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 284). If Mississippi legislature passes a law prohibiting the sale of lemon ties, the doctrine of termination by the operation of law will apply and end the contractual obligations of the two parties. An offer that terminates by operation of law through intervening illegality occurs when a court decision or legislation makes an offer illegal after it has been made (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 267) Is Lulene and Ellen entered into the agreement when Ellen was an enterprising 16-year old, the contract would not be enforceable because according to the law, Ellen is a minor. A minor is a person who is under the legal age of majority and has a limited capacity to contract (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 273). Most states have statutes set the age at 18 for most contracts. The general rule is that the minor may enter into contract; however, the contracts are voidable at the option of the minor. If Lulene had sent Ellen a letter, Ellen wins because the parol evidence rule restricts the use of oral statement in a lawsuit, when the evidence is contrary to the terms of a written contract. In the written contract Lulene sends, she offers to sell the pie as $5 and says she has to receive the Ellen’s answer by May 10, which she does. Lulene call to withdraw the offer is an oral statement and contradicts her earlier statement. Parol evidence rule restricts the use of such oral statements in a lawsuit when the evidence is contrary to the terms of a written contract (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 280). To avoid liability, Lulene can argue that she failed to deliver the pies because of unreasonable expense. Lulene can claim discharge by impracticability. The restatement (2d) of contracts holds that this principle can be applied in cases of unreasonable or extreme difficulty and expense (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, P. 286). The term implies more than unexpected costs and difficulties. This doctrine is applicable during crop failures like in the present case. The hurricane in Florida and brush fire in California caused the price of lemons to increase by 200% and thus her performance is excused by impracticability (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 286). Scenario 3 Loretta can file a complaint based on sexual harassment. She can sue Minute Dry Cleaners and John as she suffered verbal and physical abuse of sexual nature from John. The legislation that applies in this case is the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. This act gives the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the authority to implement the Act (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2011, p. 499). Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination. Request for sexual favors, unwelcome sexual advances as well as other physical or verbal conduct of sexual nature are sexual harassment when rejection of this conduct implicitly or explicitly affect an individual performance at work. Sexual harassment unreasonably interfered with Loretta work performance and created a hostile, intimidating, and offensive work environment forcing her to quit eventually. EEOC normally looks at an employee record when investigating allegations of sexual harassment. The commission looks at the context in which the alleged sexual harassment occurred and the nature of sexual advances. It determined allegations from the facts on a case-by-case basis. In filing a complaint, individuals are supposed to complete a questionnaire (available at https://apps.eeoc.gov/eas/) that screens complaints for the appropriate law and requires that complainant offer their name and contact information, name and contact information of the company in which the alleged harassment occurred, a short description of the harassing situation and the date of the alleged harassment. Once the EEOC receives the complaints, they determine whether the allegation warrant an investigation. In some cases, the EEOC conducts an investigation itself and may opt to litigate on behalf of the complainant, in which case the plaintiff becomes the EEOC. If the case does go to court, John would be held liable for the sexually harassing Loretta. Initially, John had made suggestive comments to her, complimented her looks and clothes, and even cornered her making his sexual advances even more evident. John’s behavior persisted even after she informed him that she was in another relationship and even grabbed her and suggested that if she wanted to keep her job, she would have to ‘put out’. This is a showing of practice of harassment in the liability phase and it establishes a hostile work environment. John could have fired Loretta for her prior drug problem. Court cases give guidance on what private employers can do in response to substance abuse. Managers are supposed to seek counsel or to employ an experienced drug-testing firm. The employers are also supposed to test employees on an annual basis. John could have fired Loretta because of the drug abuse problem. Contract between Lulene and Ellen Simple Contract Lulene, herein referred to as “First Party,” consents to enter into this contract with {Ellen}, known herein as the “Second Party” on April 18, 2012 This agreement is based on the following conditions: 1. The first party will supply meringue pies 2. The second party will buy 50 pies per week at the price of $5.00 per pie Furthermore, the First Party agrees: that is will supply the pies for as long the second party wants them at $5.00 per pie and the Second Party agrees: that she will purchase the pies Unenforceability or invalidity of a provision of this agreement will not affect any other provision of this agreement. This agreement is subject to the laws and regulations of the state of Mississippi. Signed: ___________________________ __________________________ {Lulene} {Signature} ___________________________ __________________________ {Ellen} {Signature} Reference Meiners, R., Ringleb, A., & Edwards, F. (2011). The legal environment of business. 11ed. Mason, OH: South Western Cengage Learning. Read More