De buad 209 business law assignment

A breach of warranty is less serious than breaching conditions that are implied. Under a breach of implied conditions, the other party may decide to end the contract (Wiley, 2019). He or she can also treat this as a breach of warranty where the contract remains binding on the two parties but he or she can sue for damages. The Sale of Goods Act provides that since people doing distance shopping buy goods depending on their description, the good delivered must match the description and any samples provided. These are implied conditions that are a very important terms in a contract. It would be appropriate to use derivative action when the profits of the common shareholders get affected and the directors do not do anything about the situation.

Dissent is appropriate when a minority shareholder whose profits have been affected negatively decides to sell their shared. Oppression action is appropriate when the unfair prejudice of the director or the operations of the company cause the profits of a common shareholder to get injured. Q3 Answer A restrictive covenant is a condition imposed on a land that is being sold. Someone selling land to another can come up with restrictions on how that land will be used that can be binding to all the other people who will occupy that land. The employer has the role of providing the employee with guidelines and the resources that the employee required to accomplish the task as the employer wants (571). The employee On the other hand, an independent contractor is a person who gets contracts from other parties or businesses.

He or she offers services in a given area of his or her expertise. The contract has specific terms (572). The independent contractor manages their own terms and assumes their own risks. As for the duty of loyalty, it requires that the director should not profit personally at the expense of the corporation. For instance, if both the corporation and the director have an equal opportunity of making money, the director must leave it to the corporation (Jackson, 2019). Q6 Answer Wrongful dismissal can be defined as the dismissal, firing or laying off of an employee without a reasonable cause or notice. In the determination of compensation for wrongful dismissal, the court considers the difference between the notice given to the employee and the notice the employee should have been given (292).

It considers the difference between what the plaintiff earned during termination and what they would have earned has sufficient notice been given. The agent does as a reasonable person would (Eaa. org. hk. Apparent authority is the agent’s ability to act within the authority of the principal. It is not authority that is apparent or actual. In many cases, joint tenancy is considered to be a tenancy of commons if it has not stated in a contract that it is to be held jointly (Yates et al. There are many reasons why the distinction between the two is important. First, the other tenant has the right to survivorship should one of the tenants die, meaning that the tenant who survives will receive full interest in the property in question automatically (Sember, 2019).

On the other hand, there is no such a right for tenancy in common as the interest and shares of a tenant who dies are transferred to their next of kin. In addition, for a joint tenancy, if a tenant who owed money to creditors dies, the creditors can follow-up on the payment by any lawful means including foreclosure. • Making sure that the employees know about computer security features, policies and ethics. • Coming up with an employee handbook for the staff so that they have adequate notice of the appropriate use of computers within the organization. Q10 Answer The Bulk Sales Act protects creditors from debtors selling all or almost all of their assets within a short time period. It applies when goods are being disposed of by the vendor outside the normal business course.

Complying with this act is a tedious process that has various requirements.  Tremblett, 2012 CanLII 67443. Doug can also claim that he be given a share of the profits that his brother made since the dissolution occurred since he did not hold the license but Bill did. This is because prior to the dissolution, the brothers held the crab licebse and used it together, sharing profits and paying all costs equally (VanDuzer & Daniels, 2003), making it a valid partnership. Bill having done more than Doug would not affect the answer because the fact remains that one party continued using the assets of the partnership for personal gain and, therefore, the other party is entitled to a share of the profits made after the dissolution on the basis of the fact that after a partnership is dissolved, all the parties should share the remaining assets equally.

With the value of the license being over $800,000 at the time the partnership was dissolved. This law states that a representation that is made carelessly and in breach of a duty that is owed to another party to take reasonable care is a misrepresentation especially if there is no special relationship that exists between the two parties, which is the case in this instance. Case 3 I think that is law is too vague because light is something that is difficult to tame given that light meant for a small area is likely to illuminate a large area that is not meant to be illuminated using that light. The application of this law is retrospective in that it is backward looking. It is wring to make a law that makes criminal conduct that was not criminal at the time it was committed and seek to prosecute it.

In this case, 4865 Ontario Limited had been producing and distributing lights and this had been a lawful practice before the city of Kitchener passed the new statute. The company has the sole liability for the debts it incurs and not the shareholders or the directors of the company who are the beneficial owners (Accountlearning. com. This is the principle called “The veil of Incorporation. ” There are, however, circumstances under which the corporate veil can be pierced by a court so that it does not give the directors any protection (Accountlearning. com. Smith obtained furniture for his own residence and did not offer any personal guarantee but wants to use the name of the company to avoid his legal obligation to pay.

When the corporate veil is lifted, the director will be held directly liable for the owed amount of money. Case 5 According to section 55 of the Patent Act, any person infringing a patent has a liability towards the patentee for the damage he or she sustains because of the infringement after having been granted the patent (Carter et al. In addition, in accordance to section 61 of the Patents Act, the person who claims there is a patent infringement can seek from the court the remedy to have an injunction that restrains the infringement. They may also seek an order for destruction of delivery up. Retrieved from https://accountlearning. com/lifting-piercing-corporate- veil-circumstances-court-can-lift-veil/ Carter, A. , Harris, G. , Inman, P. , & Maggs, A. (4) Types of authority.