Business Law Case Study: Bryan, Greenthumb Inc., and Legal Issues

This assignment analyzes a business law case involving Greenthumb Inc. and its employee Bryan, addressing various legal issues. The case explores concepts like trespass, battery, libel, and vicarious liability, examining potential claims and defenses. It delves into arbitration processes, contract law, and trademark infringement, analyzing the likelihood of success for different legal actions. The assignment also discusses wrongful termination, unfair labor practices, and the structures of business to protect owner liability. The analysis references relevant legal precedents and statutes, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal challenges and potential outcomes for each party involved. The document also covers issues of administrative agencies and their functions.

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSINESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1BUSINESS LAW
1) In the case of Robert's River Rides v. Steamboat Dev., 520 N.W.2d 294, 301 (Iowa 1994),
it was stated that ‘trespass to land’ encompasses the unlawful intrusion into an
individual’s possessory rights regarding property. For bringing a claim, it shall not be
mandatory to demonstrate that injury was caused, instead it is ‘actionable per se’.
Therefore, Jennifer shall prevail in demanding one crore dollars and asking Bryan to stay
away from her land.
2) In the case of Morgan v. Loyacomo, 190 Miss. 656, 1 So. 2d 510 (1941), it was stated
that to institute battery and assault, it shall not be mandatory to touch the body of
plaintiff, or the clothing. Snatching or knocking from the hand or touching any particular
thing that may be linked to his person, when done offensively, shall be considered to be
sufficient enough. Therefore, Jennifer shall be successful regarding her claim against
Brian for committing battery and assault.
3) In the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, it was determined that a suit
may be successful for libel only when it can be shown that ‘actual malice’ had been
caused. ‘Actual malice’ was described as awareness that the data was untrue or published
with careless neglect regarding whether it was true or untrue, however, the standard is
low regarding private individuals. Therefore, Bryan may be successful in a suit for libel
against Jennifer.
4) In the case of Joel v Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39, following the ‘frolic and detour’
test it was stated that in a case of ‘vicarious liability’ it must be discovered that whether
an employee performed actions unrelated to the business of employer and not as per the
instructions of employer. Therefore, the principle of ‘vicarious liability’ shall be followed

2BUSINESS LAW
by Jennifer to make Greenthumb liable for act of Bryan. As lawyer of Greenthumb, one
may argue that Bryan acted outside Greenthumbs instructions.
5) In the case of Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), it was stated that intimidation can
be a criminal offence if it can be proved. The lawyer of Bryan may file a suit in the ‘22nd
Circuit Court’ against Jennifer.
The things would have been a little different if the situation was vice versa
because the jurors and the juries would be different.
6) In the present case, Bryan wants to settle the dispute through a civil suit to recover
damages that have been caused to him due to the conduct of another defendant Jennifer.
However, Jeniffer wants to resolve the issue applying the process of arbitration or
mediation. Therefore, it can be said that, though the court have ordered mediation or
other informal resolution at the first instance, it cannot be considered as a fruitful
resolution as there exist difference of opinion regarding the resolution process between
both the parties.
7) Applying the element of interest it may be said that the interests of Bryan and Jennifer are
same. Applying the element of legitimacy it may be said that both Jennifer and Bryan do
not want to take part in any criminal proceeding as they both were arrested previously.
Applying the element of time and place, both the parties would want the same thing
because it would be less time consuming and they may resolve the issue at their
convenient place. Applying the element of judicial view it may be said that as per the
Judge the parties should attempt any informal resolution or mediation in the first place,
and if it is unsuccessful, then arbitration may be given effect.

3BUSINESS LAW
8) The main advantage is that the parties shall be able to settle the matter in a swift manner
and in less time. The main disadvantage is absence of formal rules, and difficulty for two
conflicting parties to settle and compromise.
9) The Federal Arbitration Act may judicially facilitate the process of private resolution or
arbitration between Jennifer and Bryan. The importance of the aforementioned Act was
provided in the case of Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984).
10) The two situations that may permit either Jennifer or Bryan to file an appeal in relation to
the award of the arbitrator under two circumstances:-
 Firstly, if the impartiality or the independence of the arbitrator is affected.
 Secondly, if the arbitrator, in his or her legal capacity, refused to act as the
arbitrator regarding the dispute between Jennifer and Bryan, or resigned from his
position as arbitrator regarding the aforementioned dispute.
11) In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1, it was said
that a unilateral contract may be distinguished from a bilateral contract. The party
regarding a unilateral contract may not be obliged to act, however, if that party does act,
then the party, which forwarded the promise should fulfil the terms provided in the
agreement. In case of a bilateral contract, both parties are obligated and bound to fulfil
their promises. Hence, the contract between Bryan and his lawyer is a bilateral contract.
12) In the contract established between Bryan and his lawyer is enforceable because the
contract contains all the necessary elements such as offer, acceptance, legality, intention
and consideration. If there is ambiguity, for instance, when Bryan could not read the
entire contract before signing, if Bryan would have read the entire contract then he might
not have signed the contract.

4BUSINESS LAW
13) If the Caribou Coffee needs to be successful regarding a lawsuit relating to trademark
infringement, then the Caribou Coffee must prove that the trademark of the coffee shop
of Bryan has infringed the trademark of the Caribou coffee, where Jennifer is working.
Caribou Coffee may file a suit against Bryan’s coffee shop under the
Trademark Counterfeiting Act of the year1984.
14) The amount of one crore dollars may be collected by Caribou Coffee, only if it is
successful in proving the fact that Bryan’s coffee shop infringed the trademark of
Caribou Coffee.
15) The Sherman Antitrust Act of the year 1890 is a statute that outlawed monopolies, trusts
and cartels in order to upsurge economic competitiveness. Therefore, in the given
scenario, it may be said that the filing of a suit of monopoly by Bryan under the Sherman
Act against Caribou, shall not be successful because Caribou is not the only player in the
industry and certainly not the biggest.
16) Bryan may prevail and be successful in relation to a lawsuit regarding a wrongful
termination if he is able to demonstrate that in the handbook provided by Greenthumb it
was stated that establishment shall not dismiss an employee for being involved in civic
actions and the establishment shall not dismiss an employee who at a particular time was
charged with an offence however, afterwards acquitted from the charges.
Bryan may not prevail or be successful regarding the lawsuit mentioned above, if
the company, that is, Greenthumb is able to prove that the incident relating to Bryan (in
Greenthumb uniform) has caused serious damage to the reputation of the company.
17) The structures of business in which the liability of the owner may be protected are limited
liability company structure, limited liability partnership structure and non-profit

5BUSINESS LAW
association structure where the liability of the members is limited to their initial entrance
fees.
The limited liability partnership is a partnership business where the liability of the
partners is restricted to their share in the business.
18) In the given situation, when the management or the mayor of the city fired the
professional staff, which were unionized, committed conduct of unfair labor practice. The
actions of the mayor cannot be justified. The mayor failed to perform his duties in an
adequate manner and did not adhere to proper procedures relating to administration.
19) Firstly, the primary problem in relation to the administrative agencies is the varied
existing procedure regarding adjudication. Secondly, another issue is in connection to the
regulation in relation to the private rights of individuals by the agencies of administration.
Thirdly, it may be said that the function of the judiciary is customarily connected to the
judicial actions. All the issues mentioned above have resulted in a lot of criticism against
the administration of the administrative agencies of the state and the nation.
20) Firstly, the refusal in relation to a process regarding grievance shall be considered to be a
way by which the union have committed the conduct of unfair labor practice. Such
refusal of process was done because the non-unionized employees were not keen on
becoming a member of the union. Another conduct relating to unfair labor practice may
have been committed by the union. The refusal by the union to do any kind of
negotiations in good faith in relation to the state administrative agency shall be
considered to be another conduct relating to unfair labor practice. The union members
were on strike instead of following the proper process of negotiation. Such unfair labor
practice shall be in contradiction to the National Labor Relations Act of the year 1935.

6BUSINESS LAW

7BUSINESS LAW
References
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1.
Joel v Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39.
Morgan v. Loyacomo, 190 Miss. 656, 1 So. 2d 510 (1941).
National Labor Relations Act, 1935.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.
Robert's River Rides v. Steamboat Dev., 520 N.W.2d 294, 301 (Iowa 1994).
Sherman Antitrust Act, 1890.
Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (1984).
Trademark Counterfeiting Act, 1984.
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003).