Owning a business is very rewarding, however, it comes with many challenges as well. There are many torts and laws a business owner should be aware of in order to make sure they are abiding by the laws set forth before them. The characters have found themselves in a wide variety of situations that must be dealt with and handled accordingly. Emma and Will have been thinking about incorporating their business in a state other than where they are located. They could do this and it may save them money, especially if they incorporate into a state that is business-friendly.
Emma and Will may be able to receive tax credits in certain states just for being located in. However, they must be aware of where their principle place of business is because they can be sued in the state where they have their principle place of business.
Emma and Will want to be aware of where they are present and doing business so that this does not happen to them.
The situation with Quinn is very delicate and needs to be handled in a professional and efficient manner. In order to avoid any hard feelings with Quinn and avoid expenses as well, ADR may be the in Emma and Will’s best interest. Litigation can be very long, expensive, and the process may also create hard feelings between them and their employee, which is exactly what they want to avoid. Emma and Will have a few options, which they should think about carefully. There are 3 primary forms of ADR that they could potentially use. Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are very commonly used in the business world in order to solve all kinds of disputes between partnerships, employers and their employee’s, as well as a variety of other relationships. In Emma and Will’s case, Quinn has already hired a lawyer to pursue a legal claim against them for employee discrimination.
They may want to offer to begin in negotiation and try to solve this dispute themselves. If that does not work, then move on to mediation. The presence of the mediator may make it much easier for all the parties involved to get what they want. The mediator would carefully listen to each side, and suggest ways on how to handle this dispute. This dispute should be able to be solved through mediation. The fact that Will and Emma both wanted to hire her again to teach the class when she was able, is a good thing. They made a mistake by firing her, when they should have placed her on maternity leave or something of the sorts. If they explain this to Quinn during mediation and offer some type of compensation, Quinn may be more understanding and want to come to a resolution. Maintaining relationships is one of the major advantages to this method, as well as create creative solutions that are relative to their problem, together. A solution is not impossible, and is actually more likely than not having one at all in this situation.
Emma and Will have another situation on their hands they must deal with as well, however, I do not think that this should be too hard to find a solution either. The NYS Board of Education has pulled all of their flyers from local schools and colleges because of what they call, offensive imagery because of the same-sex couples embracing in the photo and language explaining that the theme would be centered around marriage equality. This falls under the first amendment, and what must be figured out is if that flyer is protected, or if it is not. The flyer is commercial speech, so we could apply the Central Hudson Test in order to see if this flyer is protected or not. The first question to ask is whether or not the speech is illegal or misleading. They are not providing an illegal service or one that is misleading, so it passes the first part of the test.
The second part of the test asked is if the interest served by the restriction on commercial speech substantial. It is. The board of education wants to protect young individuals from being exposed to something that they are not mature enough for. Yes, many young individuals are aware of same sex relationships, however, that is something not to be publicized in a school. So, we move on to the third part of the test. The third part of the test is asking if the regulation on the speech advances the government interest asserted. The harm of young children seeing this is substantial, real, and the restriction on the speech will alleviate those interests. The fourth part of the tests asked if the regulation is more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. The regulation is more extensive than necessary. It is understandable to pull the flyers and hide them from the eyes of young, immature individuals that you may find in a high school and middle school. However, college students are more mature and are exposed to ideas like this all the time.
There are classes, as well as groups, concerning marriage equality and same-sex relationships in colleges. Flyers should not have to be pulled from there because the adults attending should have a bigger capacity and understanding of the issue. Instead of pulling all the flyers, less intrusive alternatives can be pursued. For example, leaving those flyers up in colleges and other areas where only mature adults would see them, and offering the class to the appropriate age groups. Then, in schools where younger individuals attend, a different theme could be chosen and a new flyer could be posted. That way, Will and Emma will not lose any business from either the college or high school drama departments and still meet regulations on commercial speech. Although the arrest of Sue is unfortunate, we did not study the warrant process and what is needed in order for police officers to obtain information, such as the binder. However, she will most likely be charged for embezzlement. Embezzlement is the wrongful conversion of another’s property by the one lawfully in possession of it. Sue was in possession of the client’s money, which she is lawfully allowed to be. However, it is not hers to keep.
The money belongs to the studio, not Sue. She is only the handler of the money. If she did in fact deposit that money into her own account, she is guilty of embezzlement. Rachel is in quite the predicament as well. First we must establish that Finn’s acceptance of Rachel’s offer was valid and indeed a real contract, which it is. It is a bilateral contract. Finn had a reasonable reliance on Rachel and truly wanted the lessons, and we can tell when he became upset when he learned that Rachel had broken that contract. This situation becomes more complex when Puck approached Rachel and offered her more money, plus an incentive to break her contract with Finn. Puck is not legally allowed to do that. Also, the court may require Rachel to give the lessons to Finn because she did make an offer, which he accepted, and she broke by taking up someone else’s offer. After what Finn does next, that may not be the case. When Finn went to Pucks house, he threw Puck to the ground and punched him 20 times. Instead of resorting to bodily contact, it would have been much more effective to take the problem to court. Now Finn may be found guilty of assault and battery. If Puck was in fear or apprehension of an immediate contact, there is assault.
There definitely was an intentional and unwanted bodily contact, which is considered to be battery. Also, when Sam tried to defend Puck and Finn threatened Sam, he also committed assault against Sam. By telling Sam that he was going to “punch (him) out immediately” if he took another step closer, Sam was most likely in fear and apprehension. The weird offer of Finn offering Sam 70$ for his guitar is not valid. Sam was asking for 75$, not 70$. Puck suffered a total of 25,000$ in damages because of what Finn did to him. Puck could take Finn to court for compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are to compensate the victim for all the harm caused to them by the tortfeasor, who in this case, is Finn. Especially because there is an implied contract for Puck to pay the doctor for his bills, even though he did not sign or make a formal contract with that doctor. An implied contract is one that is not from words, but by actions. The doctor provided a service to puck, the doctor expects to be paid from the service, and anyone would expect to pay the doctor for the service. Therefore, Puck should make sure he does indeed pay, so he is not taken to court for breaking an implied contract.
Although Puck feels he may be able to sue Sam for failing to come to his aid, he cannot. If he tries, Sam will not be found negligent. Although he knows Puck well, he does not have a duty to save and help Puck, especially when he feels as though Finn threatened his own safety. The court would not hold Sam liable for Puck’s injuries. As for the last scenario, when Finn calls Sam to say he will pay the 75$ for the guitar, the offer was no longer valid. Sam did not put a time on the offer, nor a means of communicating the acceptance of the offer. Under the law, the terms of the offer must be definite and certain. Also, the offer was terminated exactly when Sam rejected the counter-offer of Finn.
This is one of the 5 ways an offer can be terminated. There for, the sale to Brittany is valid and Sam does not have to worry about regaining the possession of the guitar in order to give it to Finn. Running a business, making offers, making poor decisions, and even taking a trip to the emergency room can have its consequences and people must be aware of what they are doing and the laws and torts surrounding those actions. We must think logically, rationally, and be informed when making decisions, or we may be found liable and have consequences for those actions.
Cite this Law Fact Pattern
Law Fact Pattern. (2016, Jun 11). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/law-fact-pattern/