Busnisse law final exam - Essay Example

Business Law Final Exam Question Discuss whether Faithful can recover. Explain fully In this case scenario, what happened to Faithful was not a legal contract since all the terms of a legal contract which include that the there has to be an offer and acceptance and then in order for it to be legally binding, there has to be considerations and a document with the terms of contract which is signed by the two contracting parties (Miller and Cross, 234). In this case, Faithful never agreed to anything and hence it was just but a promise by the board to give him pension once he retires.

Any legal action that can be taken will therefore be under promissory estoppel and not under the law of contract per se.The above scenario can therefore be discussed under promissory estoppel which is a legal law that requires the promisor to honor his or her promise to the promisee. The board in its meeting passed a decision which was based on a promise about paying Faithful $3000 per month as pension as a sort of reward after he retires. The pension promise is implemented only for a period less than two years of which he was in good health.

The new president therefore stopping his pension payment despite it having been recorded by the board is nothing short of a breach of a promise.It can be argued that the real reason the pension was stopped was because Faithful became ill and hence was thought to therefore be in no position to assist the company in any way despite him being retired and would therefore be more of a liability than an asset. According to the promissory estoppel, even though it is not legally binding in the sense of a contract with mutual consent, the promisor still has to honor the promise made to the promisee no matter the situation.

The court can therefore demand the company to continue paying Faithful the promised pension whether he is sick or not and with this ruling, Faithful can recover his promised pension and continue to enjoy it as before.Question 2Discuss all potential claims and defenses for homeowner, retailer and better based on the facts givenHomeowner is legally liable to be compensated by Better and also Retailer under negligence defense in the law of tort because of the newly enforced law in the state of East Colombia.

According to him, he thought that the mower manufacturer and even seller had honored and implemented the law and hence he was sure it was safe for him to reach under the mower once he applied the brakes on it. In order to prove liability and make a strong defense, the plaintiff suing for negligence has to have had a duty of care from the defense, the duty has to have been breached and caused damage to the plaintiff (Miller and Cross, 123). All these conditions have been fulfilled in this situation and hence Homeowner should be compensated by Retailer.

Retailer can also deny the negligence lawsuit and come up with the defense of being just a sales representative of Better among other manufacturing companies of mowers and hence cannot be directly implicated for negligence. The Retailer can employ the protection from being implicated in the law suit by relying on various laws that aim to protect sales representatives including the corporate law where the sales representative is a shareholder and also an employee in extension and hence cannot be held liable for any contracts made on behalf of the company.

Using this law therefore, Retailer has a strong defense which can make him be exempted from being liable to Homeowners accident (Miller and Cross, 752).Better manufacturing company is therefore left as the only liable party for the accident suffered by Homeowner due to negligence of the company to enforce the law about installing automatic brake for the mower blades. In defense of itself however, Better can state that the law applied to only those companies based in the state of East Colombia and not of other states like it.

The law was enacted way after Better had established its business in that area and hence would not have been aware of any changes in the by-laws unless official communication from the state was made to the company. Better is from another state and therefore the laws of this state of East Colombia does not apply to it directly and especially way after it has its supply business in progress. The company can also defend itself by saying that it had no prior communication of the law and its only contact with the state is through its sales representative Retailer and who had not informed the company of existence of such a law.

With this defense of being unaware and no official communication from the state of East Columbia, there was therefore no contract to hold the company liable for the accident to Homeowners and neither are there any other solid grounds to implicate the company in the law suit of another state that it does not belong to (Miller and Cross, 795).Work CitedMiller, Roger and Cross, Frank. Business Law. New York: Cengage Learning, 2012.