In the case of Emily, who was employed as a java programmer at Suns Microsystems in California, she can be sued by her former employers for breach of contract. The contract that she signed when she took her job at Suns stipulated that should she leave that job, she should not take a job with any of the company listed as direct competitors. Her argument that the contract is not enforceable and that she can take another job at a company located far away from California is not plausible because the contract had not mentioned distance as a regulatory factor.
This means that the contract is still enforceable regardless of the significant geographic distance as long as the company she has taken up a job with is a direct competitor. 2. The dairy was correct in its assertions. Though there were inconveniences caused to Dean and his family when he relocated to Arizona and his subsequent dismissal, there is no way he could reclaim his salary for a year from the dairy because the contract that he had entered to with the dairy was oral. An oral contract is not enforceable from any legal perspective and it is even prohibited by the statutes of fraud.
Secondly, the contract was not to be carried out within one year which makes it hard to enforce the contract and subsequently pay dean the salary for the remaining duration of his terminated contract 3. Occupier liability law states that the owner of a premise or a building is responsible for the welfare of any visitors within the premise and the building (Mann & Barry 34). The parking lot of the supermarket belongs to the supermarket meaning that the supermarket ought to ensure that all the visitors are secure from any damage or harm and that is why they have even outsourced the services of private guards.
Having outsourced these services, the duty of care shifts from the management of supermarket to the private guards’ . The fact that assailants managed to sneak into the parking lot and attacked one of the customers of the supermarket means that the guards had acted negligently. This means that the case, Pauline brown, the victim who was shot by the assailant, brought to against the guards should prevail. 4. Charles has rights against Virginia and Donald though Donald is a third party who never new of the fraudulent transaction between Virginia and Charles.
According top the law, misinformation or misrepresentation is a business crime and it is equivalent to theft. Charles relied on false information to sell his boat the law backs him in his attempts to rediscover his boat from Donald. However, the rights that Charles has against Donald are indirect and he has to use the rights that he has against Virginia to reach Donald. He cannot go directly top Donald because there were no transactions between the two meaning that he cannot recover the boat from Donald but he can institute a case requiring Virginia to hand over the boat back which will definitely cal upon Donald to give back the boat.
5. The decision to seek rescission of the contract or damages form Perel and Lowenstein is misguided and cannot be supported by the law. The sales lady may have misrepresented the value of the Diamond ring leading her to purchase the diamond at more than tow times its worth but on the other hand, the jewerlers could also be misrepresenting the value of the diamonds because they want to take advantage of her ignorance.
The problem in this case it is Sunderhaus who has the problem because she is ignorance about the value of the diamonds and cannot tell who is telling the truth between Perel and the jewelers. It is a hard for the law to order a rescission of her contract because this contract is not enforceable 6. During any race conducted by any organization, the roads that are used by the racers are usually blocked in a way that they cannot be used by the general public especially motorists to ensure the security of the racers.
In this case, Benet is knocked down by a car that had been improperly allowed on the course by the employees of the cycling federation. This means that the federation through its employees acted negligently leading to the hitting of the cyclist by the motorist. In this case, the exculpatory clause is effective to remove the responsibility from the federation because the victim had already signed a release to exculpate the federation from any responsibility.
The clause is effective especially when it’s the sufferer who exculpates the defendants from any liability. 7. Rose cannot successfully disaffirm the contract regardless of age and the refusal of Sheehan Buick to accept the car back and refund the money is justified because there is no plausible reason given for the return. Furthermore, Rose and Sheehan Buick had not entered a contract that would enable her to return the car and this means that there is no avenue for Rose to disaffirm the firm since there is no binding contract.
8. Wayne and Julia have the right to get the money from Lewis, while Lewis has the right to get it from Rebecca. However, however Lewis transfers the right for a single amount to two people and this is where the problems arises. Rebecca is being given notice by two people who have been duped by Lewis meaning that the three have a case against Lewis who wants to put Rebecca in trouble by entering into two impossible contracts.
Mann, Richard & Barry, Roberts. Smith and Roberson Business Law. South Western: Cengage, 2008