First Assignment: Legal Fundamentals for Canadian Business - Bus 1044

This assignment solution addresses key concepts in Canadian business law, focusing on torts and contract law. The first question analyzes two potential torts, defamation and malicious prosecution, evaluating their elements in a given scenario involving Oscar and Marilyn Crooke, and the second question deals with negligence of an accountant. The third question examines contract formation, including offer, acceptance, and communication, using scenarios involving sales of lawnmowers and cars. It explores the validity of contracts and the impact of counter-offers and revocation. The assignment references relevant legal principles and cases from the provided textbook. The solution offers advice on the remedies available to different parties involved in the scenarios.

[Type the company name]
[Type the document title]
[Type the document subtitle]
Hp50
[Pick the date]
Contents
Ques 1.........................................................................................................................................................1
(A) Identify two torts that may apply in these circumstances which may give Oscar grounds to raise
a civil suit, and test the elements of those torts against the scenario to determine whether an action
based on either tort is likely to succeed. Provide reasons for your answer, with proper reference to the
fact situation and the law.........................................................................................................................1
Ques 2.........................................................................................................................................................2
(A) Identify and explain the tort involved in the scenario. Applying the relevant law to the
particulars of the facts above, explain and advice JACO Enterprises what they must establish for a
successful action in court.........................................................................................................................2
(B) Discuss the remedy(s) if any, available to any of the parties. Ensure to name the party to whom
the remedy outlined is available..............................................................................................................3

Ques 3.........................................................................................................................................................3
(A) Has an acceptance of offer been communicated? Has a contract been formed?..............................3
(B) Is Alicia correct? Is the sale to Carlos valid and enforceable?.........................................................3
(C) Was an acceptance communicated by Tatiana? Was a contract with Vladimir formed? Is the sale
to Dimitri valid and enforceable?............................................................................................................4
Reference:...................................................................................................................................................4
Ques 1.
(A) Identify two torts that may apply in these circumstances which may give Oscar
grounds to raise a civil suit, and test the elements of those torts against the scenario
to determine whether an action based on either tort is likely to succeed. Provide
reasons for your answer, with proper reference to the fact situation and the law.
There are two types of torts which may apply in this case one is Defamation and second is
malicious prosecution. Oscar can raise a civil suit on the ground of Defamation and malicious
prosecution tort.
Defamation tort comprises an untruthful statement about any person. The false statement made
by any person may put an effect not only to the reputation of the victim but it can also put the
effect on the mental health of the victim. For availing the claim of defamation tort it is important
that a derogatory statement must be heard or read by third party who is not related to the parties
involved in the case of defamation.
In the case of Oscar, the oral defamatory and false statement is made by Marilyn Cooke which is
known as slander defamation. Slander defamation is a tort in which a defamatory statement is
passed by one person against another person orally to third party. Slander defamation has two
types one is slander and second is slander per se. In the Slander defamation the plaintiff has a
burden that he has to prove that the defamatory statement is made by the defendant to a third
person which is the first essential element of the slander defamation. In order to claim slander
defamation, the plaintiff needs to prove that he/she has suffered from special damages because of
that defamatory statement but in the case of slander per se defamation it is not required that
plaintiff suffered any special damage because in the slander per se the categories of defamation
are involve by which it can be presumed that the defamatory statement made against him
damaging the plaintiff. Most common categories of the slander defamation are imputing any

false criminal conduct on the plaintiff, spread a rumor that plaintiff suffered with any
communicable disease and made any damaging statement regarding the plaintiff’s occupation
and trade. Therefore, Oscar can raise a civil suit on the ground of slander per se defamation as
Mrs. Crooke imputes a false criminal conduct on the Oscar by passing a statement that he
regularly drives under the influence of alcohol which is a crime under law.
The second ground of raising a civil suit is malicious prosecution tort in which one person sues
another person for wrongful purpose; in that case the defendant party can sue the plaintiff for the
malicious prosecution. The essential elements of the claim of malicious prosecution is that
defendant of the malicious prosecution suit instigate a civil or criminal suit against plaintiff
without any reasonable ground. For the malicious prosecution suit it is important that the
previous suit was dismissed by the court in the favour of the victim or plaintiff of the malicious
prosecution suit. And because of that previous suit the victim suffered any type of damage. In the
case of Oscar, Mrs. Crooke begin the suits against the Oscar by complaining the police against
Oscar without any reasonable cause and Oscar proved that he had no fault and he was discharged
by the police now Oscar can suit Mrs. Crooke for malicious prosecution (Yates, 2015).
Ques 2.
(A) Identify and explain the tort involved in the scenario. Applying the relevant law to
the particulars of the facts above, explain and advice JACO Enterprises what they
must establish for a successful action in court.
Kevin was the accountant of the JACO Enterprises. It was the duty of care of Kevin that he does
all his work with all due skills and abilities accompanying with his profession and those expected
skills must be performed in reasonable manner. He breaches his duty of care which is
negligence. JACO Enterprises can claim against an accountant Kevin as the wrong done by him
result in damage. For the duty of care there is a reasonable foreseeability tests that if any person
owe a duty of care to anyone he can reasonably anticipate the harm caused by his conduct.
JACO Enterprises can prove the negligence of the accountant very easily as he was the
accountant and he a duty of care towards the enterprises that it was the accountant’s duty of
rational care of accounts and the damage was the result of the failure of his skills and learning.
And the burden of proof will be on accountant that he did not breach his duty. If the defendant in
general or Kevin in our case fails to produce evidence in support of his case the assumption will
be established by the court and the liability of the defendant will be determined. Canadian court
in such cases relies on the circumstantial evidence if the evidence is strong enough to determine
that an assumption of negligence has been recognized.
The case of JACO and Kevin demonstrates the extraordinary care required and the circumstances
that basically following to ordinary practice set out by the association may not be adequate to

escape and the handbook of CICA also instructs that an accountant must apply investigative
dealing and make an allowance for the reasonableness of commercial business (Yates, 2015).
(B) Discuss the remedy(s) if any, available to any of the parties. Ensure to name the
party to whom the remedy outlined is available.
If in case any person breaches his duty, the standard remedy is available to other person is
damages. In the damages monetary payment is awarded by the court for the compensation of the
loss of victim. Professionals cannot hide behind the rules they themselves made and claim that
they are following the appropriate standard, no matter what the consequences. In the case of
JACO Enterprises and Kevin, the remedy is available to the JACO Enterprises that company can
recover the loss as damages from the Kevin.
The duty of the Kevin was required the high standard care. The breach of the duty is a tort and in
the tort if the unlawful or illegal act of any person causes any injury or loss to any person or
property of person, the victim party has a right to sue the wrongdoer for the recompense.
Ques 3.
(A) Has an acceptance of offer been communicated? Has a contract been formed?
Acceptance of the offer is the second important component of a contract. For the acceptance of
the offer, acceptance is made by taking a confident and explicit step. It can be made by either
orally, in a written form or it can be made by doing any act or performance required in such
contract.
Frank made an offer by putting a sign on his lawn saying that his lawn mower is ready for sale.
He put his condition of the term on the sign board that he will sell his lawn for $200 and he
provides his contact number on that board. Frank made a valid offer for the formation of
contract. He did not made this offer for any specific person it was the offer at large. Margaret
drops a text on offeror’s voice mail that he will buy the lawn for $200.
For the acceptance of any offer the form of acceptance is provided by the offeror in his offer,
frank did not made any form of the acceptance so at the one point the form of acceptance of the
Margaret was valid after the communication received by offeror the contract has been made
between Frank and Margaret (Frey, 2015).
(B) Is Alicia correct? Is the sale to Carlos valid and enforceable?
For the formation of the contract it is important that one party offers something to other party
with certain terms and condition and if the other party accept the offer on the same condition the

acceptance of the offer has been made. In the case or Alice, Roberto made an offer to sell his car
for Alice but she did not respond till next Thursday and before any response of Alice, Roberto
sold his car to other person which is totally valid after communicating a revocation to the Alice.
Offer can be terminate due to any specified reasons like if there is any time period is specified in
the offer for the acceptance of the offer and the acceptance did not made by the other party and
the lapse in that situation the offeror has a right to terminate the order. And if there is no
specified time is given in the order in that case it is important the acceptance must be made
within a reasonable time. As per this rule the sale of a car to Carlos is valid and enforceable.
(C) Was an acceptance communicated by Tatiana? Was a contract with Vladimir formed?
Is the sale to Dimitri valid and enforceable?
For the communication of the acceptance to the offeror it is important that the intention to create
a legal relationship and acceptance of the offer with all terms and condition communicated to the
offeror.in the case of Tatiana she was accepted the offer but did not accept the terms of the offer
she made a counter- offer to the offer. Which is not a valid acceptance so that the acceptance was
not be communicated by the Tatiana to Vladimir.
For the formation of the contract a valid offer and acceptance are the essential but in the case of
Tatiana, the acceptance was not valid therefore there is contract is formed between the Tatiana
and Vladimir.
Vladimir made a fresh contract with the Dimitri for $ 3,500.00. It is the choice of the offeror that
on which amount he/she wants to sell his car. As there was no contract was made between
Vladimir and Tatiana therefore the sale to Dimitri was valid and enforceable.
As per the rule of contract the acceptance of the offer must be clear, unambiguous and
unqualified and made a communication of acceptance to the person who made the offer
(Eisenberg, 2018).
Reference:
Eisenberg, M. (2018), Foundational Principles of Contract Law, Oxford University Press, 2018.
Frey, M. (2015), Essentials of Contract Law (2nd Ed.). Cen gage Learning, 2015.
Yates, R. (2015), Legal Fundamental for Canadian Business (4th Ed.). Pearson Education
Canada, 2015