Law Coursework: Analyzing Employment and Contract Scenarios

This assignment presents solutions to two problem questions related to employment and contract law. The first question analyzes Sara's potential breach of employment terms, Peter's negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and the remedies available to Terrence. It concludes that Sara's actions warrant a disciplinary warning, while Peter's require legal action due to his criminal intent and damage to the company's reputation. The second question addresses Roger's inability to pay an installment for a machine and his attempt to expand his business despite a theft conviction. The analysis utilizes relevant case laws and sections of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) to determine that Industrial Machines Ltd has the legal right to terminate the contract and seek damages. It also discusses the potential influence of Roger's criminal record on the case verdict. Desklib provides this and many other solved assignments to help students.

Running head: PROBLEM QUESTION TASK
PROBLEM QUESTION TASK
COURSE WORK: LAW

2
PROBLEM QUESTION TASK
Table of Contents
Question 1...................................................................................................................................................3
Issue.........................................................................................................................................................3
Law..........................................................................................................................................................3
Application...............................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion...............................................................................................................................................3
Question 2...................................................................................................................................................3
Issue.........................................................................................................................................................3
Law..........................................................................................................................................................3
Application...............................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion..............................................................................................................................................4
Reference list...............................................................................................................................................5

3
PROBLEM QUESTION TASK
Question 1
Issue
Issue 1: Did Sara purposefully avoid telling Gabby regarding her employment under Terrence?
If so can it be considered as an honest mistake or breaching the employment terms with her
employer Terrence?
Issue 2: As Peter works as the supplier under Terrence, he owes him certain duties of an
employee. Therefore, having the knowledge of the fact that Terry’s terrific Designs does not
requires any gold but only silver, his approach to Mary of buying 50 grams gold be considered as
the tort of negligence against Terrence? Does Marry have the right to sue Terrence for not
buying the gold given the fact Peter who is associated with Terrence’s company ordered the
gold? Is the remedy of the breach of contract available in this case?
Issue 3: As Peter has been terminated from his employment with a cause of disobedience of the
business rule applied by Terrence without notice does Peter owe a duty of fidelity to the
company? As after termination he has used the business details and confidential information of
the company with the intention of damaging Terrence, can he be sued under the charge of tort of
misstatement to a supplier? As Terrence is the owner of the company, due to the obligation of
duty towards the supplier of the company, can he be sued for the damages? Is there any remedy
available for Terrence?
Law
As per the contract of Employment act in Canada, the employees are obligated to certain duties
to their employer. Employees’ obligations to their employers are limited to certain fiduciary
duties and avoiding the conflict of interest with their employers as well (Ahmed & Hussein,
2017).
In regard to the first issue, it is important to note that as per the ownership rights employees
obligation to the employers indicates that the duty of the employee prohibits the employees from
canvassing the customers of the business for the own business of the employee (Fudge & Tucker,

4
PROBLEM QUESTION TASK
2000). Sara however, has not reflected a conflict of interest as she has informed Terrence of the
order, thus she has not breached the obligation of employment duties to the employer.
One of the most important duties that an employee owns to his or her employer is the Duty of
Fidelity. Duty of Fidelity indicates that an employee owes a duty of honesty, loyalty and care to
his or her employer (Walsh, 2015). The elements that are included in the duty of fidelity are:
 The duty of the employee to avoid conflict of interest and not to compete with the work
of the employer
 Employees are obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the proprietary information of
the employer
Conflict of interest on the other hand suggests that the employee is competing with the
employer directly; the employee is not involved in a direct competition with the employer but
has a side business. Along with that the employee uses the resources of the employer in order
to advance his or her individual interest (Bodie, 2016).
Application
As it is evident from issue 1 Sara has informed her employer regarding the offer of contract that
she got from Gabby. Conflict of Interest is not the issue, as Sara did not try to seek orders out of
her employee duties (Johnson & Sohi, 2016). She has maintained her duty of fidelity and good
faith to her employer. However, as she did not mention Gabby regarding her employment and
Gabby thinks that he has a contract with Sara can not be considered as the misstatement. Here
Sara is not trying to set up her own business that would have indicated a conflict of interest with
her employer. Sara informed Terrence regarding the order that she got from Gabby and hence,
Sara’s negligence in informing Gabby that she is under the contract of employment with
Terrence can be considered as a mistake. Therefore, in this case Terrence can simply clarify that
Sara is an employee working for her and therefore, any contract with Sara regarding a jewelry is
automatically a contract with the organization. In this case, the employer’s remedy for this
particular breach is available. As this can not be considered as the termination of the employment
contract, it is important to note that as a less serious circumstance Terrence can suffice Sara with
a disciplinary warning (Taylor & Emir, 2015).

5
PROBLEM QUESTION TASK
In regards to issue 2 it can be stated that Peter has breached the duty of fidelity and the fiduciary
duties as well. It needs to be considered that whether his misstatement to the supplier regarding
the order to the gold on the behalf of the company is a sheer negligence or purposive. As
Terrence clearly informed Peter that he does not require any further supply of gold, it can be
considered thus, as the tort of negligence that caused damage to the company (Dent, 2015). In
this regards, it is important to note that as the acceptance of the offer is clear in the case, the
company owes the duty of care to the supplier Mary and Mary can sue the company for the
damage as Peter here serves as the representative of the company. However, the remedy that is
available for Terrence is that he can seek an injunction in order to stop the violation as well as
request Mary to bring charges against Peter personally as Mary as a supplier has the right to sue
Peter as well.
As per issue 3 suggests Peter has not only violated the fiduciary duty, duty of fidelity and duty of
avoiding conflict of interest to the owner, he has misused the confidential information of the
company with the intention to damage the company both tangibly and intangibly (Baker &
Geddes, 2015). In this regards, it is important to note that, the diamond supplier can sue Terrence
in charge of negating to receive the order. However, as Terrence himself did not make the order
and it was a malpractice of the former employee, it is important for Terrence to convince him
with conviction. In this regards, it is important to note that the employer also has the right to sue
the former employee Peter for the damages that he has suffered due to the misuse of information
and breaching the duty of loyalty and good faith (Jefferson, 2016).
Conclusion
In the light of the above study, it is important to note that Sara’s action can be compensated with
the remedy of disciplinary warning. But as Peter has not only displayed criminal intention by
fleeing away from the country, it is important for Terrance to bring reasonable charges of
damage and causing damage to the reputation of company with the help of law.

6
PROBLEM QUESTION TASK
Question 2
Issue
As it is given in the case, Roger, who owns maximum share of United Chemicals Pty Ltd, is
unable to pay the third installment of $200000 for the phosphate processing machine that they
have bought from Industrial Machines Ltd. Industrial Machines Ltd appears to sue Roger
personal being aware about his wealth. On the other hand, Roger has made a vain attempt to
expand his business in the market of explosives due to his record of conviction of theft.
Is this can be considered as a breach of the installment contract? Is the criminal record of Roger
is going to influence the verdict if the case is dragged into the legal corridors?
Law
In order to refer to the relevant case laws, the case of Universal Builders Inc VS Moon Motor
lodge Inc (1968) in order to embark on the discourse of suggesting Roger (Collins, 2015).
Furthermore, the verdict of the Cf. Plotnick VS Pennsylvania Smelting and Refining Co. (1952)
can also be considered in the course of advising Roger. In the course of analyzing the current
case in order to evaluate that whether it is a breach of installment contract, the stances of the
plaintiff and the aggrieved party needs to be evaluated in the legal grounds. It is explicitly
mentioned in the Unifor5m Commercial Code (UCC) of Canadian legislation, especially
Section2-106, that the terms ‘contract’ and ‘agreement’ are constrained to the sales of
commodities in the present and foreseeable future. It is very evident from the essence of the
statement the aggrieved party who have suffered from a material breach of an installment
contract have the right to terminate the contract (Sage, 2016). In this regard, it appears
imperative to mention over here that, in the Canadian legislation, the material has been
considered and typically characterized through its financial analogues. Thus, a financial breach
of any installment contract is equivalent in the legal court of any material breach. The Section 2-
612(3) to terminate the installment contract any time the party wants has preserved the right for
the aggrieved party.
In this regard, it needs to be mentioned that the part I (A) of the mentioned section of 2-612 is
supposed to explore the conditions, which is going to be considered in the court if any litigation
has been filed against Roger. In this regard, the Part II can be referred in order have a glimpse of

7
PROBLEM QUESTION TASK
the jurisprudential foundation of the breach of any installment contract. In this regard, it is a
relative exaggeration to mention that the section 612 of the UCC can be considered as the
foundation to evaluate and provide legal advice in such cases of installment breach.
The conclusion of the article appears to be relevant as it talks about the recession that endow the
traditional notion of “off the contract” with requisite transparency which is required to be
discussed in the course of advising Roger.
Concerning the next issue, there is no valid reference or verdict of legislation has not been found
that might shed light on the enquiry that whether the criminal record of theft prior to Roger
potential enough to influence the verdict of his litigation (Baker & Geddes, 2015). It has been
observed that the Commonwealth legislation have refused to issue Roger and his newly found
unit with the permit of expanding their business in the domain of marketable explosives. This, it
is true that this decision of the regional commonwealth legislation is supposed to intensify the
verdict of the current case.
Application
As it is mentioned earlier that the apprehensions of the Universal Builders Inc VS Moon Motor
lodge Inc (1968) case needs to be executed here in order to embark on the underlying notions of
the case of Roger and simultaneously evaluate the aspects associated with the case. As the
verdict of the above mentioned case in the Canadian legislation is supposed to deal with the
aspects of a breach of a installment contract, Roger is required to advice that he is in a plight.
Furthermore, part (I) and part (II) of the section 612 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
appears to lie against the favor of Roger as, in the Canadian legislation, the breach of any
material act has been considered analogous of any sort of financial breach (Bak, 2017). Thus, in
the current case, Industrial Machines Ltd enjoys the legal allowance of terminating the
installment contract and asks for damage. In this regard, a interest phenomena which is known as
Hobson’s choice embedded within the Article 2 of UCC can be wielded where the aggrieved
party is legally obliged to state the intent of termination in order to seek any assistance from the
legal authority (Johnson & Sohi, 2016).

8
PROBLEM QUESTION TASK
Concerning the next issue where the consideration is focused on the fact whether the criminal
record of Roger is going to affect the verdict of the current litigation. It needs to be mentioned
that the legislative measures of Commonwealth have exhibited the legal mindset as they refuses
to provide permit for Roger’s unit to expand in the market of the explosives. In this regard, it can
be added as a footnote to the current discussion that Canadian legislation is quite strict about the
cases of petty theft and the citizens with criminal record face difficulties to get any permit from
the legislation
Conclusion
In the light of the above study, it is very evident that Roger is legally obliged to pay the requisite
amount of money that has been documented in the installment contract that he have entered into
with Industrial Machines Ltd. As the latter owns a legal advantage regarding the installment
contract, as he has been unable to generate revenue regarding simply by making a vain attempt to
expand in the explosive market.

9
PROBLEM QUESTION TASK
Reference list
Ahmed, B. A., & Hussein, H. H. (2017). Avoidance of Contract as a Remedy under CISG and
SGA: Comparative Analysis. JL Pol'y & Globalization, 61, 126.
Andrews, N. (2016). Remedies for Breach of Contract. In Arbitration and Contract Law (pp.
279-333). Springer, Cham.
Bak, C. (2017). Can Canada Step into the Breach? Addressing Climate-related Financial Risk
and Growing Green Finance.
Baker, B. K., & Geddes, K. (2015). Corporate power unbound: investor-state arbitration of IP
monopolies on medicines-Eli Lilly v. Canada and the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Agreement. J. Intell. Prop. L., 23, 1.
Bodie, M. T. (2016). Employment as fiduciary relationship. Geo. LJ, 105, 819.
Collins, D. (2015). Globalized Localism: Canada's Government Procurement Commitments
Under the CETA.
Dent, C., 2015. (Potential) Regulatory Function of Contractual Clauses: Restraints of Trade and
Confidential Information in Employment Contracts.
Fudge, J., & Tucker, E. (2000). Pluralism or Fragmentation?: The Twentieth-Century
Employment Law Regime in Canada. Labour/Le Travail, 251-306.
Jefferson, M. (2016). Employment Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide. Oxford
University Press.
Johnson, J. S., & Sohi, R. S. (2016). Understanding and resolving major contractual breaches in
buyer–seller relationships: a grounded theory approach. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 44(2), 185-205.

10
PROBLEM QUESTION TASK
Sage, N. W. (2016). Disgorgement: From property to contract. University of Toronto Law
Journal, 66(2), 244-272.
Sinclair, S., Trew, S., & Mertins-Kirkwood, H. (2017). Submission to Global Affairs Canada on
the renegotiation and modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA).
Taylor, S., & Emir, A. (2015). Employment law: an introduction. Oxford University Press, USA.
Walsh, D. J. (2015). Employment law for human resource practice. Nelson Education.