This is an exam it is on Business Law. On April 30th at 9:00am
1. The BC Court of Appeal addressed the matter of whether a law s'chool could require students to sign a moral code. The code follows religious strictures against sex outside of marriage and gay relationships. The BC Court found against the code in a private religious institution, and thus rendered it unenforceable. By contrast, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal found that that very code is a legitimate requirement of a religious institution and thus non-discriminatory. The issue now has arisen in Ontario and is before the Ontario Superior Court. The Ontario Superior Court must follow the oldest Court of Appeal which is the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal (an original province in Confederation) (a) TrueFalse (b) Explain False. This is a case of precedence which follows vertically in the respective hierarchy, not horizontally. So Ontario can chose between the two positions under advisement, or devise a third option. Bonus? Regardless such a case is likely to reach the SCC because of conflicting appellant decisions. 2. Riz started an IT Consulting Company. One of his first clients was Hardware Depot, where he would have to drive to their various Toronto locations on Mondays and Tuesdays to monitor and troubleshoot their IT systems. Riz then heads to his other clients on the other days. One Tuesday morning he left one Hardware Depot to drive to a different Hardware Depot location to monitor its respective IT systems. Unfortunately, he was distracted and so he didn’t see the cyclist in the right lane as he was turning into a plaza, and hit him with his car. The cyclist landed hard breaking his collarbone and right arm. Riz apologized to the cyclist and said that he was rushing to get to Hardware Depot to provide the monitoring service, and his mind wandered. In this case, both Riz and Hardware Depot may be liable for the damages caused to the cyclist. (a) TRUEFALSE (b) Explain - False vicarious liability would not apply here - Hardware Depot is not his employer -Hardware Depot did not give any instructions as to how Riz was to carry out his duties - Riz is an independent contractor 3. Barry O'Rama is a hard-working honest labourer, who has saved up a small bundle of money from a lifetime career as an electrician. He wants to invest this money into some real estate, rather than have it sitting in his bank account indefinitely earning no interest. He approaches Ompa Rompa, a small orange-tinged man with little hands that owns properly across Toronto, to see if there is anything for sale. Mr. Rompa tells him the entire city is for sale, but he has a particular sale that might be just right for O'Rama. Mr. Rompa points to the construction of a tower in the middle of downtown, exclaiming, "look at this size of this tower! There is nothing wrong with this tower! You would have to be a fool not to buy into this tower!" To complete the purchase, Mr. O'Rama must make a deposit of $10,000. He signs some documents. These documents include a brief description of the unit he is purchasing, which states that it is a "1 bedroom unit." Three years later, when the construction has been completed, Mr. O'Rama stops by to inspect his purchase. He is shocked to discover that the unit does not have a bathroom in it. In fact, none of the condo units in the building have a bathroom. Mr. O’Rama sue Ompa Rompa for deceit. Mr. O’Rama will win the suite? (a) True / YesFalse / No (b) Explain False Deceit requires a statement that is knowingly false The party making the statement knows it is false Party making the statement makes the false statement with the intention of having the receiving party rely on it The receiving party REASONABLY relies on it to its detriment The receiving party suffers damages as a result of that reasonable reliance. Ompa Rompa made a puff. Alternatively, even if the statement was not a puff, it was not deceit, it might constitute negligent misrepresentation 4. Ernst and Andersen are both national accounting firms with offices throughout Canada with hundreds of partners. They are competing in the business of accounting and financial-consulting services. Mr. Stuart is a partner of Ernst, having joined that firm 14 years earlier as a student. He heads the insolvency department of Ernst’s Ottawa office and is, in that role, very highly regarded by those in the world of business who bring or refer insolvency work to those accountants qualified to perform it. However, over the last few years Mr. Stuart is unhappy with the firm’s treatment of him in respect of compensation and other matters. The partnership agreement between Mr. Stuart and Ernst requires a partner to give one year's notice of intention to retire; it also includes a non-competition provision that prohibits the retiring partner to carry on a competing business for three years after ending the relationship with Ernst. One day Andersen approaches Mr. Stuart and suggests that if he leaves Ernst and moves to Andersen he could have larger remunerations and enjoy better professional opportunities and a more rewarding and stimulating professional environment. In encouraging Mr. Stuart to leave Ernst, Andersen does not have any intention to hurt Ernst; it is just interested in working with Mr. Stuart, who has a great professional reputation. Mr. Stuart is attracted by the professional opportunity offered by Andersen and decides to terminate his relationship with Ernst. A few weeks after talking with Andersen, Mr. Stuart advises Ernst of his intention to leave the firm and start up an insolvency department in the Ottawa office of Andersen. He does so in breach of the terms of the partnership agreement. As a direct result of Mr. Stuart leaving his position, Ermst loses a significant amount of business opportunities. Ernst commences action against Mr. Stuart for breach of contract and against Andersen in tort law. For which tort Ernst is likely to sue Andersen? Is it likely to succeed? (a) Name of Tort (b) Explain why Mr. Stuart is likely to succeed or not ISSUE: The issue is whether Andersen committed the tort of direct inducement of breach of contract by encouraging Mr. Stuart to breach his contract with EY. RULE OF LAW: A direct inducement of breach of contract occurs when the defendant directly persuades a third party to break its contract with the plaintiff. Liability requires four factors: 1) the defendant must know about the contract; 2) the defendant must intend to cause the third party to breach that contract; 3) The defendant must actually cause the third party to break its contract with the plaintiff; 4) The plaintiff must suffer a loss as a result of the defendant’s conduct. APPLICATION: In this case all the elements of the tort of direct inducement of breach of contract are satisfied. Therefore Ernst is likely to succeed in its action against Anderson First, Andersen knows about the contract between Mr. Stuart and EY. Andersen suggests Stuart to “leave” EY, thereby showing clear knowledge of a contractual relationship between Mr. Stuart and EY. Second, the facts support the conclusion that Andersen intended to cause Mr. Stuart to breach his agreement with EY. In this respect, the tort of inducement of breach of contract is committed even if the defendant is motivated by a desire to benefit itself without intention to hurt the plaintiff. Third, to determine causation the court will ask whether Andersen actually encouraged Mr. Stuart to commit a breach of contract. In this case there is no doubt that Andersen does not simply inform Mr. Stuart of the advantages of an alternative opportunity, but he actually causes Mr. Stuart to break his contract with EY. Mr. Stuart decides to break the agreement after talking with Andersen and because he is attracted by the prospective future professional opportunity offered by Andersen. Fourth, EY suffers a loss as a result of Mr. Stuart’s breach of contract. Mr. Stuart is a highly regarded professional in the world of business, banking and law who refer insolvency work to those accountants qualified to perform it. Therefore, EY loses a significant amount of business opportunities as a result of Mr. Stuart leaving his position. 5. Michael owned the restaurant called ‘Juicy Chicken’. In order to expand sales Michael decides to add a delivery component to his restaurant. On November 1, 2016 he entered into an agreement with Dale’s Delivery Services to begin delivery of chicken on behalf of his restaurant starting December 18, 2016. He wanted to make sure he captured the demands for chicken during the busy Christmas season. During negotiations Michael became aware that Dale’s had two vehicles that were used for delivery. Michael began preparing his business for the increased sales that would come about because of his delivery service through Dale’s. On November 15th Dale’s informed Michael that he would not be able to start delivering on December 18th as Dale’s Delivery Service had too many requests for delivery from other businesses and Dale’s owner is simply overwhelmed. Although Dale’s Delivery Services informed Michael of this decision on November 15th Michael cannot bring an action against Dale’s Delivery Service until December 18? a. True False b. Explain. False. This is anticipatory breach defined as when a party indicates in advance, by words or conduct, that it does not intend to fulfill an obligation when it falls due under the contract. The injured party is entitled to immediately seek relief. 6. The Basket Inc. is a computer and electronics store. In advance of the holiday season, it places the following advertisement in newspapers and online: “SPECIAL HOLIDAY SALE STARTING ON DECEMBER 1 – ALL LAPTOPS ARE $50.00 or less!” After reading the advertisement, Darla goes to The Basket Store on December 1 to buy a laptop as a holiday gift for her boyfriend. However, when Darla is about to pay for the laptop, she is told by the cashier that the laptop she wants to buy costs $300. Apparently, there was a typo in the advertisement - it should have said “All Laptops are $500 or less”. Darla believes that the Basket is required to sell her the laptop for $50. Is the Basket legally required to sell Darla the laptop for $50? (a) YESNO (b) Explain No the legal issue is whether there was a contract to sell the laptop for $50. More specifically, the issue is whether there was a meeting of the minds or “offer and acceptance”. The advertisement is an “invitation to treat” and not an offer. Darla in the offeror and the store is the offeree. She is offering to buy the laptop for $50. By refusing to sell it for $50, the store has rejected her offer. Therefore