Agreement as a Contract - Assignment Example

Business Law 3000 Case Study No. 3 Answer to Situation No Agreement as a Contract Under the US contract laws, parties are free to make an agreement. However, an agreement can only be legally binding if it contains the essential requisites of a contract such as valid consent of both of the contracting parties, lawful subject, and lawful consideration. The agreement whereby BigBen Inc. will pay its debt to Jettison by allowing the latter to receive payments from a separate contract that Big Ben Inc. had entered into with one of its own customers is allowed under the US contract laws. Nevertheless, said agreement is enforceable only if all of the parties (BigBen, Inc., Jettison, and the customer who owes to BigBen) agreed upon the terms or conditions involved, if it was made under the formalities prescribed by law, and it contains the essential requisites of a valid contract. Answer to Situation No. 2: Liabilities for Breach of Contract When one of the parties failed to perform his or her obligation in a valid contract where he or she freely entered, he or she can be held liable for breach of contract. Breach of contract is an actionable tort and the party at fault can be held liable for the payment of damages for the loss suffered by the plaintiff. There are mainly two kinds of losses: actual and nominal. Actual losses are those that can be established by computation or estimation. Even if there is no actual loss, the claimant can still be entitled to nominal loss with the fact that a breach was made. The claimant should prove the losses suffered by him or her through presentation of evidences or documents because of the legal maxim that "he who asserts must prove". In this case, Jettison could only be liable for the actual loss suffered by the lessor when it breached the contract. The actual loss is $12,000, which is the expected amount of the lease payments for the remainder of the contract which is one (1) more year. Answer to Situation No. 3: The Employment Contract and the Non-Compete Clause An employment contract must also contain the essential requisites of an ordinary contract to be legally binding. One of these requirements is acceptance by the target employee of the terms or conditions of the contract within the prescribed period. Failure to assent within the prescribed period is a rejection of the contract, thus, no contract is formed. In this case, the employment contract is not yet legally binding since Sara did not yet give her assent to it. She has seven (7) days more to accept, reject or make a counter-offer. If Sara did not act on the contract, or if the contract was rejected or a counter-offer was made but the company did not agree, the contract is automatically extinguished and has no legal effect at all. The non-compete clause restricts an employee from sharing or utilizing the trade secrets or other information of the company he or she had worked within a certain period. It can be made a provision of an employment contract and the validity of the restrictive period will rest upon the discretion of the court. The case of Double Click v. Henderson decided by the New York Supreme Court states the rationale behind the acceptance of a non-compete clause as part of a contract or an agreement. Answer to Situation No. 4: Slip and Fall Accident When a person slipped or fell on a property and caused him or her injury, the owner/possessor of the property can be held liable for torts or damages under the premises liability rule. Under this rule, the owner or possessor of the property where the slipping or falling accident happened can be held liable for the injuries sustained by the visitor (invitee, licensee, or trespasser) if: 1) the possessor knew or should have known of the condition, should have realized that it involved an unreasonable risk of harm to the visitor, and should have expected that the visitor would not discover or realize the danger; 2) The owner/possessor failed to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the visitor of the condition and the risk involved; and 3) the visitor did not know or have reason to know of the condition of the risk involved (Expert Law). In this case, Kevin can be held liable for the injuries sustained by the customer if the accident met the said requirements set by law. The US Restatement of (Second) Torts can also be a legal basis of premises liability. Answer to Situation No. 5: The Choking and other Incidents Under the United States Uniform Commercial Code, restaurant owners or their employees can only be liable for the choking of food experienced by its customer from the food they served if the choking was caused by an object that is foreign or not part of the food that caused the choking. They are not liable for the choking of food caused by negligence of the owner. However, a number of court decisions provide that owners of restaurants or their employers have the responsibility to help a choking customer. In this case, since the choking of food was caused by the negligence of the customer despite the warning given, Kevin, the customers, and the paramedics are not liable for the injury/ies sustained by the customer. About the acts of the woman of slapping the face of Kevin in front of the public and in distributing fliers telling potential customers that Kevin and his co-partner had highly contagious disease, these are defamatory acts and the woman can be held liable for payment of damages to Kevin and his co-partner. Under the Restatement of (Second) Torts drafted by the American Law Institute and has been influential among state courts, a plaintiff must prove four elements to recover from a defamatory action which are the following: First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning plaintiff; Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party; Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication; and Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages (Find Law). All of the requisites mentioned are present in the actions of the woman, therefore, she can be held liable for defamation. Answer to Situation No. 6: Defamation Using Computers of an Internet Caf Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is applicable in this case. Said provision of the law provides that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as publisher or speaker of any information content provider". In the case of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. which is a leading case interpreting and applying section 230 of the CDA, the Court held that "by its plain language, section 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service" (Raysman, et al, 2003). Summarizing the provisions of the law, Kevin can not be held liable for any defamatory statements provided by a third person using their computers most especially if those statements were published without their consent. References: Find Law. "Elements of Libel and Slander". Retrieved May 11, 2009 at Larson, A. "Premises Liability Law". Retrieved May 11, 2009 at Raysman, R., et al. "Publisher, Distributor Liability Under the Communications Decency Act". New York Law Journal Volume 230 No. 103. (Online). Retrieved May 11, 2009 at Read More