Analyze each of the two cases below taken from the areas of law that we have studied since Test 2 (for example do not use Negligence or Contract law)

Case 1

Charlie owned and operated an upscale clothing store in downtown Kelowna. He prided himself on his firm's reputation for customer service. One afternoon in the store, Charlie saw one of his senior salesmen, Ralph, interacting with a customer. The customer was yelling at Ralph for showing him argyle socks with a Scottish tartan design on them, when the customer had asked him for socks that were solid black. Ralph apologized to the customer, but the customer continue in his criticism of Ralph. Eventually the customer yelled at Ralph that he was "too incompetent to be a real salesman".

Ralph snapped and told the customer to go shoot himself.When Charlie heard this, he immediately told Ralph that he was fired, and that he should leave the store. Ralph did so. Charlie then apologized to the customer, and showed him some black socks.

Ralph sued Charlie for damages for breach of his employment contract. Ralph had worked for Charlie for 15 years, he was 40 years old. He had no supervisory responsibilities. There were several other clothing salesperson positions available in Kelowna, yet Ralph did not find similar employment until 10 months after his firing. Ralph sent out resumes soon after he was fired, but spent most of his time watching daytime TV for the first 6 months after his dismissal.

1. Identify the main legal issue(s) (2 marks)

1. What is the main legal test/rule of law governing this issue? (1 mark)
3. Develop arguments for the plaintiff, applying the rule of law to the facts. (1 mark)
5. Develop arguments for the defendant, applying the rule(s) of law to the facts. (1 mark)

Case 2

Grumpy and Sneezy, being two of the seven dwarfs, decided to open a clothing store called the Short and Small Shoppe. They did not incorporate a company to run the business.They did not know how long they'd keep the Shoppe open, but they planned to operate it for the indefinite future, so they could share in the profits they believed it was sure to earn for them.Grumpy knew he lacked the people skills to be good with the customers, so he and Sneezy agreed that Sneezy would be the "front man" in the Shoppe, despite the fact that Sneezy was likely to serve their clientele while battling a chronic case of the sniffles.

Grumpy and Sneezy agreed that Grumpy's participation would be limited to his investing $100,000.00. Apart from this investment, Grumpy was to take no part in the daily operations of the business. Sneezy would be entitled to 80% of the profits generated, because he was the person who was actually running the business on a daily basis.The Shoppe prospered under Sneezy's supervision, at least for a time. Sneezy would give Grumpy periodic reports, and they often discussed Sneezy's business plan for increasing sales, but that was the limit of Grumpy's participation in the affairs of the Shoppe.

Once Sneezy developed pneumonia and moved to the Cayman Islands in search of a warmer climate, the Shoppe ceased to do business, and closed its doors. Creditors of the Shoppe then sued Grumpy for the recovery of the debts Sneezy had incurred in order to keep the business going.

1. Identify the main legal issue(s) (2 marks)

2. What is the main legal test/rule of law governing this issue? (1 mark)

3. Develop arguments for the plaintiff, applying the rule of law to the facts. (1 mark)

4. Develop arguments for the defendant, applying the rule(s) of law to the facts. (1mark)

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Case 1 1 Main Legal Issues Wrongful DismissalTermination of Employment Contract Damages for Breach of Employment Contract 2 Main Legal TestRule of Law ... View the full answer