Business Law Assignment: Analysis of Legal Scenarios and Problems

This document presents solutions to a business law assignment, addressing several key legal issues. The first problem analyzes the Sales of Goods Act, focusing on the transfer of risk, buyer's right to examination, and remedies for defective goods. The second problem concerns employment law, specifically unfair dismissal and the rights of employees under the Canadian Labour Code. The third problem examines trademark infringement and the eligibility for a patent of a recipe. The fourth problem deals with breach of contract and the liabilities of parties involved in a business agreement. Each problem includes a statement of the issues, a summary of the relevant legal rules, an analysis of the facts, and a conclusion, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles and their application to the given scenarios.

Running head- BUSINESS LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1.

1Business Law
Problem 1:
The Sales of Goods is applicable in the following scenario the answer to the given
issues are as follows:
i. The following issue is regarding the payment for the damaged caused to the Goods.
Under section 21 of the Sales of Goods Act, it is stated that the risk of the good passes
to the buyer as the goods are transferred. This provision states that any good is under
the risk of the seller unless it is delivered to the buyer, but once the right is transferred
to the buyer, the goods are considered to be at the risk of the buyer whether delivered
or not. Applying the rule, Jack shall be liable to pay for the damages as the rights
were already transferred to Jack.
ii. According to section 33(1) of the Act, the buyer possesses the right to examine the
goods before buying. In the case where the buyer has not examined the goods or item
earlier that they may not accept the contract unless they get another opportunity to
examine. In the following scenario Jack has not examined the car earlier so under this
provision he shall be deemed not to accept the contract unless he gets another chance
to examine
iii. The rules that shall be applicable in the following scenario are section 18 and section
29. Section 18 states that the risk of the property or the goods passes on to the buyer
with the property and section 29 states the delivery of a wrong item to the buyer due
to wrong quantity or quality. Under the section 29(3) it specifies that in cases when
the goods that are sold to the buyer are not according to the contract, then the buyer
has the right to reject the goods as a whole. In the following scenario, Jack can claim
the damages and reject the car under section 29(3) of the act as Mary stated that the
car was in good condition and can go for long drives easily. However, the seizure of

2Business Law
the engine proves that the car was not at all in good condition. Whereas, Mary can
take the defence under Section 18 by stating that the risk of the goods passes to the
buyer along with the property whether delivered or not.
iv. Under the Mortgages act when a borrower has defaulted in paying the debts of a
mortgage payment, then the first remedy that he is possessing is selling the property
in order to make the payment where the person is a registered mortgagee. Under this
provision, the property can be only taken upon serving the proper notice. So, in this
case, Jack did not receive any notice regarding the payment. In that case, he shall get
time in order to repay the debt to the bank.
Problem 2:
Issues
The main issues that are observed in the scenario are as follows:
 Will Caroline receive any damages from the company due to unfair dismissal and
humiliation that she faced in the workplace?
 Was the dismissal of Caroline by the Company was on fairgrounds?
Rule
 Under the Division XIV, Part III of the Canadian Labor Code it states that any
employees who have finished 12 months in a continuance way with a company they
can register a complaint against the company for unjust dismissal of work within 90
days from the dismissal.
Analysis
Caroline: In the following suit, she is the plaintiff and the employee of the company. The
company fired her upon an unjustified reason. Under the provisions of the employment and

3Business Law
the labour code, it was her right to obtain a notice before she could be fired. Under the
provision of law it is not lawful to dismiss any employee without any justifiable reason. So,
in this case, there was no notice served by the company to her, and following the law, the
company shall not dismiss Caroline without any justifiable reason or without serving any
notice. So following that might be eligible for the loss suffered to her and claim the damages
from the company.
St. Catherine: They are the defence in this case and the former employer who fired Caroline.
As per the circumstance, it cannot be considered as unfair dismissal as she was dismissed for
her conduct as upon various occasions she used to steal items from the office and provided it
to her Grandchildren. Additionally, she was not a very efficient worker as she could not
deliver the work as per she was supposed to do, and in various instances, she left the work
early without completing her scheduled time. So for that reason, it was the breach of the
conditions of employment for which she was fired.
Conclusion
Through the analysis, it is clear that though Caroline was not an efficient worker that
does not give the right to the company to terminate her employment without any notice or
providing any sort of warning to Caroline. The company should have provided proper notice
of the dismissal to Caroline. In that case, the company shall be held liable for not following
the guidelines and be held liable to pay half the salary she received per month for the
dismissal.
Problem 3:
Issue
The main issues that raised in the following circumstance include the following:

4Business Law
 Is the act of Mick is an infringement of the trademark protection right?
 Will Mick be eligible for getting the patent of his grandmother’s recipe?
Rule
The Intellectual Property Rights in Canada provide the trademark and the patent rights to the
parties. Section 19 and 20 of the Trademark Act, safeguards a registered owner of a
trademark so that it shall be not deceptively used by any other traders. In cases of
infringement, the registered owner can claim for damages. Under the Patent Act, it allows
any process, product or composition to be patented if it is novel, not similar with other
products and is useful. In those cases, a patent can be granted
Analysis
1. As per the first issue, his act consisted of infringement as he used a similar colour
pattern, similar sign, and external structure. This was deceptively similar to their
trademark as it can attract the customers of the other company thinking it was
Mickey’s restaurant. So for that, the company may file a suit under section 19 and 20
and further claim for damages for the infringement. Not only that he may be charged
under Sec 6 for a fine and imprisonment for the infringement.
2. Mick shall be eligible to obtain the patent for the recipes, and it was a kind of
composition that was only used by his grandmother. It was novel, not similar to others
and useful. So, in that case, food recipes can obtain a patent.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mick had infringed the trademark protection rights of the company and
be eligible to get the patent for the recopies

5Business Law
Problem 4:
Issue
1. Whether there shall be any legal action against Brad?
2. Whether there shall be a different scenario if Katharine was personally hired in charge
of Advertising?
Rule
Under the provision of the common and the Quebec law, a contract is stated as a legal
binding between all the parties. Any party who breaches the contract shall be liable for the
cause of action against that person. Under the provisions in the case where there is a breach
upon the warranty or the conditions of the agreement, the innocent party shall be able to
claim the damages from the party who has breached the contract. The damages vary as per
the nature of the case. It may be in the form of monetary damages, restitution, compensations
or for specific performance.
Analysis
1. Although they were not connected to commence the business of each other though
they had a contract upon which there of them agreed to contribute equal shares of the
capital, time and will divide the profits equally. Following that Brad breached the
contract that they three had about sharing the profits. Considering that it can be stated
that there was a breach of contract and Brad shall be liable for breaching the contract
for which Rick and Katharine shall be able to claim damages or compensation for the
loss of the contract.
2. In a case where Katharine is personally hired by the company, then the scenario
would have changed. As if she was not bidding for the company, there has been no

6Business Law
contract between the parties, and she would have been personally liable for the
damages and could not claim any damages from others.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is stated that Brad will be liable for the damages as there was a
breach of contract and in a scenario where Katherine was employed by BBB then she shall be
liable for the damages and could not claim the damages from Brad.