BUS 261

BUSINESS LAW
ASSIGNMENT – 2

SUBMITTED BY
PRERNA ARORA
CRN- 14648
STUDENT ID- 300167829
SUBMITTED ON- 22/2/2021
EMAIL ID - prerna.arora@student.ufv.ca

SUBMITTED TO
GERRY PALMER
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that
 I have not Copied
 I have not Plagiarised
 I have cited all sources from where Quoted or
adapted
 I have used my own words only

Prerna Arora
SIGNATURE
1. Case 1, Chapter 4
In this case, Stormsen can sue Lucas for committing tort of Slander of Goods. To
maintain an action for slander of goods, it will be necessary for the plaintiff, Stormsen
to prove the following essentials. First, that the defendant disparaged the goods of the
plaintiff by making the disparaging statement ““The 1500 produces crap, Atlas calls the
1500 crap, and I call the 1500 crap!”. It will also have to be proved that the
disparagement was false; which might be tricky, because Lukas may claim that it was
a statement of truth, since his the machine had been indeed defective. Which might be
difficult to prove since Stormsen’s chief engineer took all reasonable steps to address
Lukas’s issue.

Also, it would also have to be proved disparagement was made maliciously by Lucas.
It can be claimed that unsatisfied with Stormsen’s response, Lucas deliberately with a
malicious intent, sought the chief engineer in a place like a Trade show, to injure
Stormsen’s reputation. It is obvious that the disparagement was published, orally to the
attendees of the trade show. Stormsen can also prove that Lucas’s disparagement
resulted in special damage, specifically economic damage, since their exchange had
quite a crowd of factory owners and two writers from a trade journal. In the light of
these arguments, I believe that Stormsen can successfully sue Lukas for Slander of
Goods.

2. Chapter 4, Case 4
The case deals with the rights of an occupier of property to eject a person from property,
and the application of force in the exercise of rights. Questions that have to be asked:
What is the status of the drunken student once he was requested to leave the premises
in the first instance? Did the 'bouncer' commit a tort by taking the student by the arm
and ejecting him from the premises? Did the student commit a trespass by returning
for an explanation? Did the bouncer's actions on the second occasion constitute a tort?
Was the university and the bouncer responsible for the student's failure of the
mathematics course the next semester?
I believe the drunken student had entered on the premises lawfully, since he was of
lawful age and a student at the university. The bartenders were entitled to ask the
student to leave when he became drunk. When he refused to leave, he became a
trespasser, and the occupiers (the bartenders and bouncer) were entitled to take
reasonable steps to remove him from the premises. However, when the student refused
to leave, the police should perhaps have been called to deal with the student, as any
excess force on the part of the bouncer might be considered an assault and battery. As
a general rule, a person may eject a trespasser from property if the trespasser refuses to
leave after being told to do so, and the person in possession (owner or tenant) may use
whatever force is necessary to eject the trespasser. The student would probably be
unsuccessful in his action against the university and the bouncer and at the most his
claim for medical bills may be successful. The injury to the student's hand was a result
of the student's resistance to ejection rather than a deliberate act on the part of the
bouncer to injure the student have to be asked.

3. Chapter 4, Page 92 Case 6

This case examines the tort of False Imprisonment, and the theft of goods, although the
detention of Jonas was not for the theft of the goods actually taken (the grapes), but for
what appeared to be the theft of the shopping basket. The store security personnel seized
and held suspected of taking goods from a place of business, only to discover later that
the person was innocent. Although, the imprisonment did involve actual physical
restraint the store manager makes it clear to the suspect hat any attempt to leave the
premises will result in the embarrassment of seizure,.
In this case, however, the defendant i.e. the store manager , falsely seizing Jonah, can
claim defense that he had have reasonable and probable grounds for believing that Jonah
had committed an offence and was escaping custody. In this case both the supermarket
and the department store sold similar baskets; even on close examination, the products
appeared identical. This can form reasonable grounds for the store manager’s belief.
To conclude, current scenario, the store manager will not be held liable for false
imprisonment.

4. Chapter 4, Case 8
The case majorly involved willful damage to the goods by the plaintiff, the tenant, since
he was involved in the deliberate smashing of the lock door and disarming the alarm.

The Tenant may file a counter claim for trespassing and conversion, Since Nico
wrongfully took of the sewing machines of his tenant. And by locking the sewing
machines, he denied the tenant, the lawful owner to be denied possession of his goods,
and while Nico was the landowner, he had no right to do so without any eviction notice
in advance. However, it is possible that since Nico was merely moving goods without
converting them to his own, he can be held liable trespass alone. Although, Nico owns
the property, the law requires the landlord to respect the tenant’s right of possession. So
even though, the tenant was due on two month’s rent, Nico’s entry into his shop, in his
absence without a prior notice, makes him liable for trespassing. In this case, it is likely
that the court, on hearing both claims will ask the tenant to pay for damages to Nico’s
Property.
On a separate side, Nico can apply to the Landlord and Tenants Board his state, for an
order that legally evicts the tenant and requires the tenant to pay all of the money he
owes.

5. Chapter 5, Case 2
The contents of this case deal not only with the question of liability of the youth Basil
but also the questions of liability of Basil's parents for their failure to instruct him in the
safe handling of a potentially dangerous instrument, and their failure to safely store the
weapon and its pellets.

In this case, the limits of parental liability are discussed. Basil assumed the duty of
care in the form of how to handle it safely. One can argue Basil’s father had the greater
duty of care because the rifle was entrusted back to him; he had to ensure that there was
no access to it. Even though was Basil, given training on how to use and given a warning
not to use it when back in the city, had the standard to avoid using while home. Also,
“a reasonable parent" under similar circumstances would lock the cabinet in which the
weapon was stored. The accident was clearly foreseeable.

The only defense Basil and the family would have is the voluntary assumption of risk,
because the friends encouraged the use of the pellet gun and they assumed all risk
related to what would happen. However, the rules for assumption of the risk change for
people with lower capability to understand risks, such as children in this case. So this
defense may not be sufficient.
To conclude, the failure to control access to the gun represented negligence on the part
of the parent in view of the fact that the gun was a dangerous weapon. Both the parents
and child will held liable for the injury.

6. Chapter 5, Case 3
This case involves two different claims for damages against Khalid:
(1) a claim in negligence for the injuries suffered by the child.
(2) a claim by the child's mother for the nervous shock suffered as a result of Smith's
actions.
The cursory backward glance was not sufficient and was below the standard of care.
Depending on the time he lived in his neighborhood, he should have been aware of the
existence of small children in the neighborhood. Khalid have foreseen the likelihood of
a small child being on the sidewalk. He can claim defense for parental negligence upon
the parent who allowed the child to play in the street unattended. But I believe, the
mother’s claim to receive compensation for child’s injury is a valid.
 With respect to the mother's claim for damages for nervous shock, the question of
foreseeability on the part of the driver should again be raised. Khalid could have
contemplated the injury has been inflicted on the child as his tricycle was behind his
taxi while he was reversing the same but he could not have contemplated that the mother
of the child could have suffered shock as she distant from the place of incident. She
suffered the shock merely at the sight of the tricycle being hit by the taxi. The child was
the primary victim and if any sort of nervous shock could have been caused to or
suffered by him, the taxi driver would have been liable.

But the mother, who was not the victim in the case and was merely a spectator, cannot
hold the driver liable for any damages caused to her because the driver could not have
foreseen any damage to her.

To conclude, Khalid could not have reasonably foreseen, that to back a car in the way
in which he did, would cause the injury complained of to the child’s mother, and that
therefore owed no duty of care to her. Hence, Khalid is held liable only to the extent
that the negligent driving resulted in a slight injury to the child and was held liable to
pay damages to the child only.

7. Chapter 5, Case 4
Donaldson had duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing damage to others using or
present on the road. The standard of care required is the care and skill of an ordinary
driver and no allowance is made for the inexperienced or learner driver. If the owner of
the car is different from Donaldson the driver, he can also be held for negligent
entrustment and be liable to pay a part of the damages.

The design of the ice cream truck, its appearance, and the appearance of the products
dispensed are all carefully calculated to attract small children to purchase the wares
dispensed from that vehicle. In these circumstances, so soon as the defendant Smith
Foods Ltd put the truck in operation on the streets, they then put themselves in such a
relationship with their child patrons that they became the neighbors of those children
like in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, “must take reasonable care to avoid acts or
omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor”.
It was inevitable that when the company attracted the patronage of young children, on
the evidence found to be so young that they were of preschool age with little ability to
comprehend danger then fail to take proper steps to ensure their safety like by
employing a second attendant is a breach of Duty of care, and even the company Smith
Foods Ltd. can be held negligent.
Thompson should have these children might be injured by a passing vehicle, not to warn
them. In fact, the permitting of the children to cross the street at all in order to purchase
might well be considered negligent. Negligence on his part may also the further
responsibility of his employer, Smith foods.

Since the mother had been talking to her husband on the telephone at the moment that
the ice cream truck arrived. All of the above the defendant parties, can argue
contributory negligence on the part of parent, to reduce the claim.

To conclude, the negligent driving of Donaldson was a major contributory cause of the
accident and the negligent operation of the business of Smith foods Ltd and the
negligent conduct of its driver Thompson taken together can be taken as the other
contributory negligence. The case does not furbish enough details to determine the
liability of the parent.

8. Chapter 5, Case 8
Undoubtedly, Kevin will be held liable for the tort of negligence. He breached his duty
of care, his alcohol level was almost three times the legal limit. Issues raised in this case
would include the liability of the tavern, and the extent to which liability should be
imposed on it for serving its patrons intoxicants. Kevin was negligently over served
wherein the venue’s employees had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the
Kevin was intoxicated and nonetheless continued to serve him alcohol. There are a
number of possible defenses available to a tavern. These include: 1. Kevin did not show
any visible intoxication; 2. He left in the care of a responsible person; 3. He was not
driving home when they left the tavern; and 4. Over-service of alcohol did not cause
the accident.

In the similar case Hague v. Billings (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 298 (Ont. CA), the bar served
the patron several drinks despite the facts that the patron showed obvious signs of
intoxication. The patron the left the establishment in his vehicle and struck the Plaintiff.
The Tavern was found 15% liable, patron was found 85% liable.
The defense by Kevin and the Tavern owner in this case could be that passengers in
Kevin’s car voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by entering a vehicle driven by a
person who was clearly intoxicated. It can also be argued that his passenger, could not
make this type of decision, given his own drunken state.

To conclude, shall the liability will be divided between the Patron Kevin and the Tavern
since Canadian courts have long held that commercial hosts owe a duty of care to
patrons who face a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury as a result of alcohol
intoxication.
9. Chapter 6, Case 1
Commercial Builders Ltd has all rights in refusing to pay the $30,000 difference that
Central Land Development is now requesting from them. The can claim the
performance of obligation on their contract as they clearly requested from Central Land
Development the pay-out amount and the assumed obligation amount was paid by the
commercial builders.

Hamilton, the accountant will be held liable for negligent misrepresentation because he
made an incorrect statement about the amount owing without due care for its accuracy
to third parties whom he could foresee would rely on information he provides. This
constitutes as a breach of duty of care on the part of the professional.

10. Chapter 6, Case 3

In case of Alex, he will not held liable since he furbished the accountant with all the
relevant information. However in the case of bank, the bank did not exercise reasonable
duty of care, as it did not rectify the error when it was discovered. The error made the
employee, who was acting as a representative of the bank, also makes the bank liable
for the damages suffered by the investor on account of the misstatement.

Accountant will be held liable to their client and also the investor in this case, for not
exercising a reasonable degree of care and skill in carrying out their duties. Accountant
may argue that he was hired to prepare financial statements for their clients – not their
client’s bank or investors who may be provided with the financial statements. The
defense would argue that, the law should hesitate before invoking a duty of care on the
part of accountants vis-à-vis a third party. Conversely, it would be naïve in the extreme
to ignore the fact that accountant knew that the financial statements audited by them
will likely be relied upon by financial institutions when considering whether to extend
financing. He did not exercise reasonable care in the preparation of the statement, which
is why he is also liable for any damages suffered by the investor.