Business Law | Part 2 | Assignment

Running head- BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1Business Law
Part 2
Answer to 1
The rule of the passing off restricts any trader from using any trademarks that are
deceptively similar to the other trader. It prevents the trader from misrepresentation of any
kind of goods or services that are similar to the goods and the services of the other trader. In
general, it is a cause of the action stated under the Trade Mark Act, concerning the
representation of the deceptive representation of the goods or services by the trader or the
manufacturer (Austin, 2016). In the following case, Allan and Monica started their business
in the name of Compact that was similar to an already existed company with the same nature
of work and the name Compaq. Even they copied their colour pattern which was exclusively
used by Compaq. In that case, Alaan and Monica used the name that was deceptively similar
to that of Compaq. So The Compaq will be the plaintiff and Allan, and Monica will be the
defendants. The remedy that shall be provided to the plaintiff would include the protection of
goodwill of the business and not letting the defendant use such deceptive name or
combinations for their business.
Answer 2
The interference in the contractual relations generally occurs in cases where any
person knowingly or intentionally impose harm or damages the business of the third party
that imposes economic harm to the business of the third party. In tort is also known as the
tortious interference. It is relevant in this case as both Alan and Monica were aware that
International Tire Inc was one of the largest customers of National Business Systems.
However, knowing that on several occasions, persuaded the customers of the National
Business to switch to their business. They did it knowing the fact that that might cause a

2Business Law
grave impact in the economic condition of National Business system. In filing a suit, the
National Business shall be the plaintiff and Allan, and Monica shall be the defendant. The
plaintiff shall be eligible to claim for the punitive damages. Other remedies also consist of the
injunction relief.
Answer to 3
In this case, the statement of Monica in order to persuade the customers of the
National Business system may amount to defamation. As per the provision, any act that
causes harm to the reputation of a person or his business in any way amounts to defamation
(Young, 2017). In this case, both f them deliberately persuaded the customers knowingly and
intending to damage their sale and the reputation of the business company. Defamation can
be of two kinds libel and slander. In this case, they have committed the offence of slander.
Libel is the written statement of defamation, whereas slander is the oral form of defamation.
The defence that both of them can use is the fair report of the proceeding and innocent
dissemination.
Answer to 4
The restrictive covenant that was signed by Allan and Monica shall be enforceable by
the courts. These restrictive measures are induced in their terms of employment of the
employee-employer relationship and are applicable upon the termination of the employee.
These measures are generally imposed by the employers where they restrict the employees
for a specific period in joining another competitive company or start up a new business that
shall be a competition for the company (Smit & Valiante, 2015). In this case, both of them
sighed the contract, and it was clearly stated that they should not join any competitive
company or start-up within three years. So they have breached it as they were terminated in
the year 2013 and started the new company in 2014.

3Business Law
Answer to 5
Trespass was an issue in this case as the leasing company send one of its agents to
break into the shop at night in order to recover the van. It was indeed an offence of trespass as
the agent entered Allan and Monica’s premise without their knowledge and permission.
Although it was to recover the van that belonged to the leasing company, but the premises
was not theirs. So breaking into it shall not be considered as a fair thing to do and it consisted
of trespass, and it is evident that they have commenced trespass (Weinberg, 2018). Thus, in
this case, the plaintiff shall be Allan and Monica, and the leasing company and the agent shall
be the defendant. For the claim for the damages caused by the leasing company and for the
trespass, they shall be liable to claim for the damages caused to the shop.
Answer to 6
The trespasser may cause action against Monica for causing grievous hurt to the
agent. It was clear that it was Monica who spilt the oil and due to her negligence of cleaning
it up the ignition causes. If she had cleaned it them, the damages could have been avoided,
and the agent would not have suffered those injuries. So for that reason, the leasing company
shall file a suit against Monica for negligence and causing injury to the agent. So evidently
The Agent shall be the plaintiff who suffered the injury and Monica will be the defendant
whose negligence caused the injury.
Answer to 7
The offences that both Allan and Monica were liable before the bankruptcy was
initiated was writing the cheques to the suppliers and selling off some unused inventory to a
discounted price less than the original price. They pocketed the cash believing that it was for
their hard work. In legal terms when someone removes some property, or obscure debts or
engage or obtains credit can constitute the offence (Telfer, 2014). In legal terms, when

4Business Law
someone undergoes a procedure for bankruptcy and do not disclose such facts shall be held
liable for the offence in regards to the prior procedures of bankruptcy. In this case, the lawyer
was not informed about the selling of the inventory items, and that shall constitute the
offence.
Answer to 8
Lucky shall have a cause of action against Compact and charge them for the offence
of negligence. Lucky can file a suit against Compact for negligence (Stark, 2016). As it was
their lack of care and sense of responsibility for which he lost his HQ computer. It was the
duty of Monica and Allan to look after the belongings of the customers when they give it to
them for commercial purposes. It is an obligation upon Monica and Allan following their job
to return the items correctly to the customers after they have mended it. So it was their lack of
care and duty for which the computer was stolen. Not only that the CCTV cameras were just
dummies. So it was their responsibility to ensure the safety of the customer’s belongings as it
is their duty of care to return it properly. So the theft occurred, and for their negligence,
Lucky suffered the loss. Lucky shall be liable for the compensation for the loss of computer
due to Allan and Monica’s Negligence.

5Business Law
Reference
Austin, G. W. (2016). The consumer in cross-border passing off cases. Victoria U.
Wellington L. Rev., 47, 209.
Smit, A., & Valiante, M. (Eds.). (2015). Public Interest, Private Property: Law and Planning
Policy in Canada. UBC Press.
Stark, F. (2016). Culpable carelessness: Recklessness and negligence in the criminal law.
Cambridge University Press.
Telfer, T. G. (2014). Repeat bankruptcies and the integrity of the canadian bankruptcy
process. Can. Bus. LJ, 55, 231.
Weinberg, M. (2018). Paradox and trespass: Possibilities for ethical practice in times of
austerity. Ethics and Social Welfare, 12(1), 5-19.
Young, H. (2017). The Canadian defamation action: An empirical study. Can. B. Rev., 95,
591.