Business Law Essay Example for Free

Business Law Essay â€Å"We have completed this assignment on our own and have not discussed it with any other individual or used any other unauthorized aids. We acknowledge compliance with the academic requirements (e.g. citation of sources) of the University of Toronto.† Legal Issue #1 Who should be responsible for the men with the broken wrist? Background: On the final night of the haunt, there were two young men who ignored the sign that said danger, upper balcony unsafe this is NOT part of the tour and went upstairs to use the bathroom. Due to that fact that the renovation was not done, thus, plumbing was not fully attached As a result, after they flushed the toilet, it turned out to have a huge water spill and caused one of them to fall and break the wrist. Legal issues: If the young man wants to sue whoever is responsible for this tragedy, he must claim that the occupier of that theatre was negligence; otherwise, he won’t get any compensation for the injury Special Negligence – occupier’s liability The occupier’s liability Act under [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 337 states that someone considered being occupier if one of the following requirements is met: 1. Someone is in physical possession of the premises. 2. Someone is responsible for and has control over the condition of the premises. 3. Someone is responsible for and has control over the activities carried on at those premises. 4. Someone who has control over who is allowed to enter those premises. 5. Also, tenants and owners are both occupiers. In this situation, we have three different parties who consider being the occupier. 1. Leanne’s parents: As we know, Leanne’s parents are the legal owner of that theatre, consequently, they absolutely could be counted as one of the occupier, now, let’s examine if they were negligence at that time. (1) Duty of care: No matter what, as long as the invitees, licensees, trespassers are in the premises of the occupier; the duty of care automatically falls on the shoulder of the occupier. In this case, the question is: were Leanne’s parents careful enough to make sure the people in their premises were safe? Due to the fact that by the time the accident happened, her parents had already rent the whole theatre to Leanne by a proper contract, even though the renovation of that theatre wasn’t completed yet. Since the age of Leanne is not given, we could not tell if Leanne is over 18 or not. If Leanne is below the age of 18, According to the law, persons under the â€Å"age of majority†: 18 in Ontario (19 in B.C.) – at time contract made she would consider being a minor, and the law says that a minor usually cannot make a rational decision therefore treated as legal incapacity. In this case, the parents should be responsible for making their daughter the person who has control over the place. On the other hand, if Leanne is above 18, due to the fact that her parents have not warned about the possible hazards that the theatre could have to the visitors, they are still responsible for not fulfilling the duty of care. (2) Standard of care: As we know that the man with broken wrist was a trespasser who is not permitted before entering that premise (upstairs). The unfinished plumbing was not deliberately set up to harm any of the people at the theatre. Therefore, her parents have met the standard of care. (3) Physical causation: the unfinished plumbing was not the direct causation of that harm; nevertheless, it was the cause to make the water spilled and indirectly harm the young man. (4) Foreseeable harm: In this case, the harm is a bodily injury. Before this haunt, the theatre was in renovation, after Leanne proposed the haunted theatre plan; her parents accepted it and stopped the renovation instead. It is reasonable for her parents to notice that there should be some potential dangers in the theatre, however, they were just amazed by the idea and forgot about the foreseeable harms that could bring to the visitors. 3-step analysis: (1) Contributory negligence: Since there is a sign to warn the people that upstairs balcony is dangerous, even though they went to the bathroom instead of the balcony, they were still acting careless in a way that they ignored the sign. Plus, the reason for one of them to fall is because of the fact that they flushed the toilet with a unfinished plumbing, causing the water to spill, and made the floor wet, as a result, the man slipped and broke the wrist. Therefore, these two young man should share the liability for this accident. (2) Other defendant: Other defendants might be Leanne and also the contractor that is responsible for the renovation. (3) Vicarious liability: There is also no vicarious liability for this case. 2. Leanne: As a tenant who rent her parents theatre for one week, also the one that is responsible for and has control over the activities carried on at those premises, she is also consider being the occupier. For Leanne’s case, if she is below 18, then the contract between her and her parents are invalid, then she could not be sued. Otherwise she should be going through the following 4+3 negligence analysis as same as her parents. 4-Step Analysis: (1) Duty of care: As I have mentioned before, since the accident happened in haunted theatre was during the time Leanne rented from her parents, plus the activity on that night was under Leanne’s control, so that she automatically had the duty to make sure everyone is safe no matter the person is invitee, or trespasser. In fact, there were just so many visitors while there wasn’t enough staff to take care of the place, even though she had put a sign to warn the visitors not to go upstairs, but, there is still a possibility that somebody would ignore it and go ahead. On the other hand, the man’s wrist was broke right at the time when he fell, according to the relevant time says by the law, it again assures that the responsibilities would fall on Leanne. (2) Standard of care: As we know, after the contractor told Leanne about the plumbing problems she had set up a sign to warn the visitors to stop going forward. Normally if someone sees a sign tells them not to go forward, people would follow, however, during that evening the situation is slightly different. We know that it is a haunted theatre event during Halloween week; consequently the visitors on that evening are most likely to seek challenges and excitements. Therefore, it is reasonable for some risk loving people who would deliberately ignore the sign and go upstairs to seek for more fun. As the planner and the manager of the event, she should have studied the behavior of the potential customers in order to guarantee a better performance and strategies to control the whole activity. Nonetheless, the two young men were considered to be trespasser in this case due to the fact that the haunted event didn’t invite anyone to go upstairs. As a result, the duty owed to trespasser was extremely limited, according to the Common Law Status Approach, as long as the occupier of that particular premises didn’t mean to set up the hazard to trap the plaintiff, then, the standard of care will be satisfied by the occupier. (3) Physical causation: In this case, the wrist of the young man was broken in an indirect way. The plumbing of the toilet had some problems, after the young man flushed the toilet, it caused the water spilled out and the floor became wet. Finally, the young man slipped and broke his wrist. As we can see during the whole process, Leanne had done nothing directly or indirectly to cause the harm of the young man. However, it is the reckless conduct of the young man himself to cause the accident. (4) Foreseeable harm: As I have mentioned, before the haunted theatre, the theatre was in renovation. After Leanne proposed the idea of stopping the renovation for one week and opened the theatre for Halloween event, and the danger can clearly be foreseen. Even though the actual hazard didn’t harm the visitor directly, but it still created a dangerous situation for the two young men. 3-step analysis: (1) Contributory negligence: As I have analyzed in Leanne’s parents 3-step analysis, the plaintiff himself as a trespasser, ignored the sign to warn the dangerous situation of upstairs, and used the upstairs toilet which has a plumbing problem, as a result to make the water spilled on the ground and made the young man fell. Thereby, the young man had contributed to the accident, and should be sharing the responsibilities with whoever is negligence in this accident (2) Other defendants: Other than Leanne’s parents and Leanne herself, the contractor may also be responsible for this accident which I will be examined later. (3) Vicarious liability: There is no Vicarious liability in this case, since the actual harm brought to the young man was mainly caused by himself, therefore we couldn’t claimed that somebody hurt him while doing his/her job. 3. Contractor: The contractor is the one who is responsible for the renovation, naturally the condition of the whole theatre is somehow related to him and he should be responsible for that. As the occupier’s liability Act says that anyone that is responsible for and has control over the condition of the premises is considered as occupier. Due to the fact that the young man was hurt under the premises that was renovated by the contractor, he should consider being one of the potential defendant. 4-Step Analysis: (1) Duty of Care: As we know the contractor is one of the occupiers, therefore, he automatically has the duty to make sure the people are safe, no matter the people are invitees, licensees, or trespassers. (2) Standard of Care: As we know, before Leanne started her haunted theatre plan, the contractor had informed Leanne about the unfinished plumbing and the potential harm that could bring to the visitors. We could clearly tell that as an occupier, he did not try to harm the trespasser (Two young men) intentionally. Meanwhile, he actually tried to protect the visitors from being hurt. (3) Physical causation: As far as we know, even though the contractor is considered being an occupier, but, he didn’t have any control over the place at that particular day, moreover, he is not there by the time the accident happened. On the other hand, due to the fact that he didn’t finish the renovation and caused the plumbing problem and it lead to the water spill which ended up made the man fell down, this whole series of events are just too â€Å"remote†. In conclusion, there is not physical causation of this contractor to make the wounded man the way he is. (4) Foreseeable harm: As we concluded that the accident is just too â€Å"remote† from the contractor, therefore, there is no foreseeable harm caused by the contractor. 3-Step Analysis: (1) Contributory Negligence: As we have proven previously, the young man got into the premises where he was not invited to, thus, he considered being a trespasser. That is the reason for him to share the obligations of this accident. (2) Other defendants: There is no other defendant other than Leanne, Leanne’s parents, and the contractor. (3) Vicarious liability: There is no vicarious liability in this case. Legal Issue #2 Would two of her friends sue Leanne for breach of contract? Background: Leanne recruited two friends and offered them 20% of the net profit or a set amount of $500. Both of them indicated that they were sure 20% of the net profit would be work out to be more. After the operation of business, Leanne gave them each 20% of the net profit ($400) but those two friends asserted that the contract was for 20% of the net profit or $500 and they definitely would choose $500. Two of her friends would probably sue Leanne for breach of contract if Leanne paid them each only 20% of the net profit instead of $500. Let’s consider is there a contract between Leanne and two of her friends: Contract Requirements: â€Å"O+A+C+I† Offer: Leanne (offeror) offered verbally that she would give two of her friends (Offerees) 20% of the net profit or a set amount of $500. Acceptance: Two of her friends (Offeree) accepted offer by saying â€Å"20% would work out to be more† and also by conduct that they started to work next day. In addition, they did not change any terms in the offer so that no counter-offer had been made. Consideration: Leanne (Offeror) would pay money to two of her friends (Offerees) while the offerees would work for Leanne. There is no gratuitous promise between them. Intention: Leanne had a need to recruit the workforce while two of her friends were passionate to work for Leanne, both of the parties showed their serious intention Hence, there was a contract existed between Leanne and two of her friends. Two of Leanne’s friends were able to sue Leanne for brea ch of contract. This contract could be viewed as either a unilateral contract or a bilateral contract. Reasons for a unilateral contract Two of her friends (Offerees) could accept simply by doing what offer required. They needed to work for Leanne and in return they would get money reward. Issue – Did Offerees have the right to claim an option at any time? The key term â€Å"20% of the net profit or a set amount of $500† would be the main argument for both parties in the court. Two of Leanne’s friends would insist that they had the right to choose an option at any time because Leanne had not made a deadline. Undoubtedly, there are different understandings of meaning in regard to this specific contract term. Both parties agreed on contract wording but the term meant different to them. In the eyes of two of her friends, the contract offered them two options that they could choose after they acknowledge the exact amount of the 20% of the net profit. With no doubt that they would go for the option which had higher amount of money. From Leanne’s perspective, she offered them those two options before they started to work. Leanne believed two of her friends accepted the term†20% of the net profit† by the fact that they said that 20% would work out better. In this situation, the court would apply the most â€Å"reasonable† interpretation to the key term: It was unreasonable that two of Leanne’s friends had the right to choose after they realize which option would be higher. Leanne’s offer would be meaningless if two of her friends could do so. The intention of offering an option of 20% of the net profit was to motivate two of her friends. The most reasonable interpretation would be that two of her friends only had the right to choose an option before they started to work, as a step to accept the Leanne’s offer. Therefore, their wording â€Å"20% would work out to be more† would be considered as approving this term only and accepted Leanne’s offer. Reasons for a bilateral contract This was a bilateral contract because offerees needed to trade promises with the offeror. The offerees’ wording â€Å"20% of the net profit would work out to be more† was strong evidence that they accepted this specific term so that they gave this promise to offeror they would work and in return they would get 20% of the net profit. Issue – was there breach of contract? As a matter of fact Leanne gave two offers to two of her friends, one offer with the key term â€Å"a set amount of $500† and another offer with the key term â€Å"20% of the net sale†. As two of her friends chose the second option, they rejected the first offer and accepted the second offer. In this case, two of her friends would not be able to sue Leanne because there was no breach of contract and the court would surely favor Leanne because she did not violate any terms on the contract. As a result, two of Leanne’s friends would not succeed in the lawsuit. In the future, Leanne should be more careful when she makes the contract. She has to list all key terms in details and elaborate on all those terms so that the offoerees would not have a different understanding on those terms. Legal issue #3 – Would the film maker sue Leanne for breach of contract? Background: The independent film maker would like to film in the haunted house and asked Leanne for the offer. Leanne asked for $500 and told the film maker that he could film any night that he liked. The film maker said he needed time to consider the offer. Afterwards, the film maker got very upset when he came to the theatre on Nov 5 and consequently realized that the haunted house was not in operation anymore and the renovation had resumed. Let’s consider is there a contract between Leanne and the film maker: Contract Requirements: â€Å"O+A+C+I† Offer: Leanne (offeror) offered the film maker (Offeree) that he could film on any night he liked and the price would be $500 Acceptance: After Leanne had offered to the film maker, the film maker said he would have to think about it so there was no acceptance at this point. But later the film maker came to the theatre to film on Nov 5 could be considered as an acceptance by conduct. Consideration: Leanne (Offeror) would provide the film maker (Offerees) a place to film while the film maker would pay Leanne $500. Intention: The film maker had a strong desire to film and Leanne was willing to provide the place Hence, there might be a contract or no contract existed between Leanne and the film maker, depends on whether or not there was acceptance and when the offer lapsed. Issue – when the offer lapsed? There was no specific time in the offer that required the offeree to accept. Thus the court would consider a â€Å"reasonable time†. The â€Å"reasonable† time was usually 1 month. Nonetheless, this â€Å"reasonable† time was difficult to tell in this situation. Leanne would consider the offer goes expire after Halloween, because the operation of the haunted house was a seasonal event and it was reasonable to presume that there would be no more people coming after Halloween. Leanne would likely shut down the haunted house after Halloween. From the film maker’s view, the â€Å"reasonable† time would probably be one month because this was usually a standard. It was reasonable for him to believe that the haunted house would continue to operate because he did not know Leanne only ran this event for one week. Thus, the â€Å"reasonable† time was hard to assess. If the court considered the â€Å"reasonable† time was before Halloween, then Leanne would be free from any legal liabilities. If the court insisted the â€Å"reasonable† time was within one month, then Leanne would be sued for breach of contract since she could not fulfill her promise. Leanne had to revoke the contract immediately before she stopped operating the haunted house to avoid any legal duties.