Contemporary Canadian Business Law: Principles and Cases Tenth Edition Cases

Contemporary Canadian Business Law Principles and representatives Tenth Edition Chapter 15 Case 9 Case 9 deals with a homeowner (the regulation) who lists her safe moveing for sale and enters into an intellect with an element to facilitate a sale with a third p blindworky. over the course of the mental representation savvy a prospective emptor inspected the seat alone didnt make an lead before the sureness compact expired. The legal issue that arises comes after the agency compact expires.The prospective buyer afterwards decided to put in an offer, which was accepted, besides once discovering that the agreement between the principle and doer had expired brought legal action against the agent. The disposition of the buyers actions in my opinion could be considered abnormal. The completion of the agency agreement between the principle and the agent doesnt kick in more bearing on his decision to place an offer on the ho utilise.The buyer indicated his interest in the house when he inspected the decentty and would have puzzle aw be of the disclosed agency at that condemnation, so the accompaniment that the agency agreement was expired at the time the offer was do is irrelevant. If anyone was to have a problem with the item that the offer was accepted after the expiration of the agency agreement expired it should be the principle, depending on the situation. While the agreement may have expired the principle may have indicated with her actions that they would like the relationship to continue without signing a raw agreement.Without the principle notifying potential third parties that the agent no longer had the authority to stick around the parties, the agent was coply in spite of appearance their decentlys to accept the offer. The property owner would be able to ratify the agreement assuming that at the time the offer was accepted it was an agency of conduct that existed between her and the agent. If agency of conduct wasnt the ca se and the principle had made it cognise to potential third parties that the agent no longer had the authority to act on her behalf, before the agent accepted the offer, then it could not be ratified.Ratification is retroactive, so agency by estoppel prevents the principle from denying representation after the fact. Chapter 22 Case 9 Case 9 deals with two individuals, Smith(plaintiff) an owner of a large farm in eastern Ontario and Crockett (defendant) who occupy a undersized confine on a woodlot that was on Mr. Smiths farm property. Mr. Crockett constructed the log cabin in 1978 with the permission of the property owner and employ the cabin as a fishing and search camp. For many a(prenominal) eld the defendant used the cabin on weekends during the pass while he was fishing, and for a weeks during the fall hunting season.Beginning in the summer of 1981, Crockett began to make improvements to the argona surrounding the cabin, by adding a small vegetable garden and constructin g a fence during his months long summer vacation. The fence was constructed around both the cabin and garden for the purpose of keeping the animals out. During the hunting season of that year, Crockett cut down a number of small trees and extend the fenced-in-area to a parcel of land 23 metres by 30 metres and included a gate in the fence for access to the roadway.Smith made sure to ask Crockett about the fence, shortly after it was constructed, and was told that it was there to keep the animals away from his flowers and vegetables. The following year Crockett accepted early retirement and worn-out(a) the period from May 1st to November 30th at the cabin. Crockett continued to pledge advantage of the fishing, continued to plant a garden and helped Smith with the congeal of his crops and his fall harvest. Crockett would leave his belongings in the cabin over the raw winter months and spend his winter in a warmer climate.When Crockett returned to the cabin the next April he was m et by a local tax assessor, who asked him if he owned the cabin and answered with an affirmative and sometime alter received a municipal tax bill. Crockett would pay the tax bill, which was issued in his name, for the year of 1983. all over the next several years Crockett would continue to live in the cabin and except spend the coldest winter months away and paid taxes on the cabin each year. In 1994 Crockett expanded the fences further to include an area 30metres by 45metres in put in to enclose a larger vegetable garden.Smith didnt object but warned that the two large hickory trees be left(a) standing. In the summer of 2002, the two large hickory trees were damaged by a lightening make a motion and subsequently cut down by the defendant, which promoted the plantiff to go into a rage and order Crockett off the property. Crockett refused to leave claiming he was the owner of a parcel of land. The main legal issue to discover regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as A possessory obligation to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time.Crockett has s healthful enter existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he woolly his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crocketts occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.It is my judgment that the coquetteroom would view things similarly and decide that Smith lost his right to object to Crocketts encroachment and allow the defendant to continue to use the property in the ways in which he had previously been. Having occupied the property for parts of 22 years not being asked to rescind the property during any of the first 10-20 years, Crockett was within his right to refuse and the fact that he paid taxes on the property further supports his claim to willpower of the property.Chapter 28 Case 8 Case 8 deals with a hitch written by Ascot with the intent to secure a painting from an art gallery. The plaintiff (Ascot) had prepared a cheque in the amount of the purchase price, which was $1000 and signed it, but was unsure of the exact spelling of the art gallery, so he left that part blank. Ascot would leave the uncompleted prick in his desk drawer with the intention of fashioning a phone roar to the gallery later in the day for the data necessary to complete it.After having determined the gallerys name, while out at lunch, he returned to his office to complete the cheque but discovered it had been stolen. The defendant, Hines, a confrere employee of Ascot, had taken the cheque and filled it out payable to bearer and used it to purchase items at a store where Ascots signature was recognized. The storeowner w ould later present Ascots cheque to the bank for payment. Ascot was a few legal proceeding too late calling the bank with a stop payment and the bank had already paid the cheque.It is important to determine whether the plaintiff has the proper elements to warrant a objective falsifying. While there are collar classes of defences to claims for payment of bills of exchange, the most effective are called real defences. Real defences are defences that go to the root of the instrument, and are good against all bearers, including a holder in collectible course. In the situation explained above, it is clear the plaintiff never delivered the incomplete instrument and therefore is a real defence due to the fact that another party completed the instrument, and negotiated it for payment.It is obvious that the defendant, Hines, completed the incomplete instrument and negotiated it for the payments by way of receiving goods from the storeowner. The legal claim of the cancellation of the in strument completely would not be enough to use in a defence against a claim of payment by a holder. Because Ascot was a few minutes late calling the bank to cancel the instrument he would not be able to deny payment as the cancellation was not noted on the instrument and its handling could have been viewed as heady if the circumstances were not known.Since Ascot had not tho signed an incomplete instrument, but also did not deliver it, both elements were present to constitute a real defence. The courts would rule that the plaintiff did indeed have a real defence and as a result would not be accountable for the amount paid out by the bank to the storeowner. The actions of the employee go beyond the scope of this case and are therefore left out of the ruling. Chapter 19 Case 12 Case 12 deals with a two parties who were stirred by the strike action taken by the Gear Makers Union.Those parties are Gear depot phoner and transmission Manufacturing fellowship. Gear store Company i s a wholly owned subsidiary of Gear Manufacturing Company, while Transmission Manufacturing Company is an important customer of Gear Manufacturing Company. The Gear memory board Company and the Gear Makers Union had been unsuccessfully trying to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement before the expiry of the old agreement but could not reach an agreement.Both parties requested a conciliation service offered by the Ministry of agitate, but the service failed to produce an agreement. Before a strike or lockout can take place, requesting the services of conciliation offered by the Ministry of Labour is mandatory. After the failed conciliation, the employees went out on strike and set up pale lines at the entrance of the plant of Gear Manufacturing Company as well as the entrance to Gear Warehousing telephoner in an judge to prevent the shipment of goods from the warehouse.A few days later the employees decided to set up a vigil line at Transmission Manufacturing Company, and prevented the confederation from shipping a large truckload of transmissions to another manufacturer. The actions taken by the spectacular employees resulted in the Transmission Manufacturing Company suffering a loss of $5000 by its failure to make its delivery on time. The union members are licitly allowed by law to withhold their services from their employer and set up picket lines at the entrances of the employers premise if they desire to.Focusing on the rights of the Gear Warehousing Company, as long as the employees are picketing for the purpose of conveying information there is nothing they can do to prevent the picketing from occurring. Where the Gear Warehousing Company gains rights is when it comes to dealing with attempts by picketers to prevent persons from entering or expiration the plant, and therefore may be actionable by law.As well, if property is damaged or a person is injured while attempting to enter or leave the employers premise, the employer has the r ight to apply for a court order terminus ad queming the number of pickets to only a few. While the employees were within their right to picket at the entrance of the plant of Gear Manufacturing Company, Gear Warehousing Company would be well within its rights to apply for a court order limiting the number of pickets to only a few so that shipment of goods from the warehouse could remain on schedule.Moving on to examine the unessential picket is where the Transmission Manufacturing Company comes into the picture and we look at their rights. A secondary picket is simply when picketing takes place somewhere other than the employers place of business. Until 2002 it was considered unlawful except where employer and supplier or customer were so closely related that suppliers or customers might be considered involved in the dispute as part of the employers overall operations.Following a 2002 court ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, it was determined that secondary picketing constitute s emancipation of expression, and is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Due to the fact that employees were not only conveying information regarding the strike but also preventing the Transmission company from making its shipment on time they would be well within its rights to apply for a court order limiting the number of pickets to only a few so that future shipments of goods from the company could remain on schedule.In my opinion the courts would come to the same conclusion as mentioned above and limit the number of employees picketing in one place at a time to ensure the businesses involved were not prevented from making shipments. The striking employees are well within their right to convey information regarding the strike action but cannot prevent the Gear Warehousing Company and the Transmission Manufacturing Company from making shipments to customers.