Business Law Essay Example for Free

Business Law EssayWe harbour effected this assignment on our own and have non discussed it with all separate individual or used either other unauthorized aids. We have sex compliance with the academic requirements (e.g. citation of sources) of the University of Toronto. tap-ordered Issue 1 Who should be responsible for the men with the broken wrist?Background On the final night of the haunt, at that place were ii young men who ignored the sign that tell 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 non d wizard and only(a), thus, plumbing was non fully wedded As a result, after they flushed the toilet, it turned go forth to have a huge peeing spill and caused one of them to fall and break the wrist. Legal recognisesIf the young valet wants to sue whoever is responsible for this tragedy, he must claim that the stick out physician of that theatre was negligence other wise, he wont check any compensation for the injurySpecial Negligence occupiers liabilityThe occupiers liability Act downstairs RSBC 1996 CHAPTER 337 states that someone knock overed being occupier if one of the following requirements is met 1. Someone is in physical possession of the set forth.2. Someone is responsible for and has control oer 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 pip, we have three different parties who consider being the occupier. 1. Leannes parents As we know, Leannes parents are the legal owner of that theatre, consequently, they absolutely could be counted as one of the occupier, now, lets examine if they were negligence at that time. (1) responsibility of care No matter what, as long as the invitees, licensees, trespassers are in the premis es of the occupier the duty of care automatically falls on the shoulder of the occupier. In this case, the question is were Leannes parents careful enough to make sure the large number in their premises were safe? Due to the fact that by the time the stroke happened, her parents had already rent the whole theatre to Leanne by a proper slenderize, plane though the renovation of that theatre wasnt 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 age of majority 18 in Ontario (19 in B.C.) at time bring made she would consider being a minor, and the law says that a minor usually cannot make a lucid decision thitherfore 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 detered ab expose the possible jeopardizes that the theatre could have to the visitors, they are smooth responsible for not fulfilling the duty of care. (2) measuring of care As we know that the man with broken wrist was a trespasser who is not permitted originally entering that premise (upstairs). The unfinished plumbing was not deliberately throttle up to harm any of the people at the theatre.thitherfore, her parents have met the standard of care. (3) Physical causation the unfinished plumbing was not the use up 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. forward this haunt, the theatre was in renovation, after Leanne proposed the haunted theatre plan her parents accepted it and stopped the renovation or else. It is commonsensical for her parents to notice that there should be some potence dangers in the theatre, however, they were just amazed by th e idea and forgot about the foreseeable harms that could bring to the visitors.3-step analysis(1) Contri scarceory 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) secondary 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, s he is also consider being the occupier. For Leannes case, if she is below 18, then the contract amongst 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 Leannes 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 art object there wasnt 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 mans 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 pillow slip during Halloween week consequently the visitors on that evening are most likely to seek challenges and excitements.Therefore, it is logical 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 didnt invite anyone to go ups tairs. 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 Leannes 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 Leannes 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 couldnt claimed that somebod y 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 occupiers 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 didnt 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 didnt 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 similarly 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 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 invite d 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, Leannes 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 stateed them 20% of the net profit or a set amount of $500. some(prenominal) of them indicated that they were sure 20% of the net profit would be work out to be more. After the physical process 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.Lets consider is there a contract between Leanne and two of her friends Contract Requirements 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. word meaning Two of her friends (Offeree) accepted offer by apothegm 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 footing 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 Leannes friends were able to sue Leanne for breach of contract. This contract could be viewed as either a unilateral contract or a bilateral contract.Re asons for a unilateral contractTwo 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 choice at any time? The primaeval depot 20% of the net profit or a set amount of $500 would be themain argument for both parties in the court. Two of Leannes 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 Leannes perspective, she offered them those two options before they started to work.Leanne believed two of her friends accepted the term20% 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 bonnie interpretation to the key term It was unreasonable that two of Leannes friends had the right to choose after they realize which option would be higher. Leannes 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 Leannes offer. Therefore, their wording 20% would work out to be more would be considered as approving this term only and accepted Leannes offer.Reasons for a bilateral contractThis was a bilateral contract because offerees needed to trade promises with the offeror. The offerees wording 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 a set amount of $500 and another offer with the key term 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 harm on the contract. As a result, two of Leannes 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 understan ding on those terms.Legal issue 3 Would the film manufacturer 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.Lets consider is there a contract between Leanne and the film maker Contract Requirements O+A+C+IOffer 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. just later the film maker came to the theatre to film on Nov 5 could be consider ed 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 ordain 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 reasonable time. The reasonable time was usually 1 month. Nonetheless, this 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 makers view, the 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 reasonable time was hard to assess. If the court considered the reasonable time was before Halloween, then Leanne would be free from any legal liabilities. If the court insisted the 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 in operation(p) the haunted house to avoid any legal duties.