You are on page 1of 4


Nick Osma
Professor OBrien
Business Law
Final Exam 2017

-Cases between parties:

John v. Gertrude

The first claim in this case could be how John was discriminated by his boss Gertrude. Title VII outlaws

discrimination in hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, or any other aspect of employment, because

of any individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (pg. 574). After John developed the

R1000, Gertrude promoted herself and not him just because he was Chinese. John was clearly

discriminated against due to his national origin. As an at-will employee, John may quit for any reason,

at any time and may be fired for any reason at any time (pg. 573). Court remedies for winning

plaintiffs include back pay, attorneys fees, reinstatement orders, retroactive seniority and pension

benefits, injunctions and consent decrees (pg. 574).

Gertrude may be able to defend herself against this claim by establishing a BFOQ defense. BFOQ (bona

fide occupational qualifications) is a way for the employer to have a chance to tell her side of the story if

brought up in court. Gertrude would have to show that the BFOQ defense, is necessary to the business

(pg. 575), but because of the circumstances and due to BFOQ defenses being construed very narrowly

and unfavorably (pg. 575), it is unlikely Gertrude will succeed in her defense.

Another claim against Gertrude may be disparate treatment. To win under disparate treatment, the

plaintiff must demonstrate what appears to be discrimination on purpose (pg. 577). When Gertrude

saw that the prototype worked, she removed John from the project and put him in the repair

department. John was also qualified for the promotion Gertrude received after she introduced the robot

to the President and board of ILUVROBOTS. John did not receive it because Gertrude did not like

Chinese people. The employee must prove that he is a member of a class of persons Title VII protects

and he was denied a position or benefit that he sought and was qualified for and that was available

(pg. 577). Court remedies for winning plaintiffs include back pay, attorneys fees, reinstatement orders,

retroactive seniority and pension benefits, injunctions and consent decrees (pg. 574). Disparate

treatment is another possible claim John could have against Gertrude.

The next claim could be copyright infringement. A copyright is an exclusive right to print, reproduce,

sell, and exhibit written material, musical compositions, art works, photographs, movies and television

programs (pg. 608). A copyright lasts for the life of the creator, plus 70 years (pg. 608). John is the

creator of the R1000 so the copyright is his. Because John was not hired to create the project, the shop

rights doctrine does not pertain to this case. The shop rights doctrine is when employees are hired to

invent or write for the employer, but hold no patent or copyright interest in the resulting product (pg.

610). John holds the copyright for being the creator, and when Gertrude changed the name on the

project she infringed the copyright. 1990 copyright law amendments specifically prohibit the

unauthorized lease of sound recordings and computer programs (pg. 608). Plaintiffs who registered

work within three months of the date it was first published may also win attorneys fees and statutory

damages awards, $30,000 for ordinary infringement and up to $150,000 for each willful infringement

(pg. 608).

Another claim John may have against Gertrude is fraud. A very important intentional tort; depends on a

false, material representation of fact that the defendant either knows to be false or recklessly makes

knowing that the information is incomplete. The defendant must intend that the plaintiff rely upon the

representation, and thereby be damaged (pg. 467) Gertrude had intent and knew what she was doing

when she took Johns name off the project and demoted him. She knew that he was relying on her to be

honest with him thinking she would credit him for his work. She falsely took credit for a project that was

not hers, and credited John for only assisting on the project. John can file another claim against her for

this as well. Proper relief for this claim could be attorneys fees and other compensation John might

need for having to go to court, and maybe some jail time for Gertrude because of how big of an incident

this turned out to be.

There was never an agreement nor an offer made between John and Gertrude which means that there

was no contract present in this case.

After evaluating the possibilities of what claims could be brought up, I have come to think that John

would come out as the winner in this case. Gertrude had too much against her to be found innocent.

ILUVROBOTS, Inc. v. Dullards

ILUVROBOTS and Dullards had an agreement for 5000 units of the R1000 a year for 10 years. When the

R1000 started to run amok, Dullards got out and replaced ILUVROBOTS with LOVBOTS when John

started to grow his own company. ILUVROBOTS may have a breach of contract claim against Dullards for

their actions. A discharge by breach is if one party fails to substantially perform, the nonbreaching

party is responsible for values received in quasi contract (pg. 160). ILUVROBOTS is the party that did

not perform and Dullards is the nonbreaching party. Even though Dullards technically breached the

contract with ILUVROBOTS by leaving their contract, ILUVROBOTS still did not perform as expected.

Dullards should be responsible for returning the robots that were not sold. Dullards should then be

excused from the contract with ILUVROBOTS and continue their deal with John and LOVBOTS.


The family that had their dog killed and kids injured by the robot have a claim against ILUVROBOTS.

Strict liability is when the defendant is liable for the plaintiffs injuries despite the absence of

negligence or intentional, wrongful acts (pg. 460). Product Liability is the legal liability of

manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users, and bystanders for injuries or damages

caused by the goods (pg. 737). The family can sue ILUVROBOTS for product liability because a robot

was defective and caused harm to the family. Punitive damages are damages recovered in tort (not

contract) cases to punish the defendant for outrageous or malicious conduct (pg. 739). ILUVROBOTS

should give the family compensation for a new dog and for the cost of the childrens medical bills that

the family would have had to pay. In addition to a brand new LOVBOT100.


ILUVROBOTS wants to know how to get rid of the LOVBOT100, so I came up with a plan. Reverse

engineering could be an option. ILUVROBOTS could purchase one of the LOVBOT100s and take it apart

and try and figure out Johns trade secret. If ILUVROBOTS could figure out his secret, I dont see why

they would not be able to compete with the other competitors.