Module 2 - Case Study Assignment-BUSINESS LAW
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
6333
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
2
Uploaded by lopezalejandra029
CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT –
Module 2 Respond to EACH of the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Peter hires Alice as an agent to sell a piece of unimproved real estate he owns. Peter wants the sales price to be set at least $ 60,000.00. Alice discovers that the fair market value of Peter’s
property is actually at least $ 90,000.00 and could be higher because a shopping mall is going to be built nearby. Alice forms a real estate partnership with her cousin Carl, and she prepares for Peter’s signature a contract for the sale of the property to Carl for $65,000. Peter signs the
contract. Just before closing and passage of title, Peter learns about the shopping mall and the increased fair market value of his property. Peter refuses to deed the property to Carl. Carl claims that Alice, as Peter’s agent, solicited a price above that agreed on when the agency was
created and that the contract is therefore binding and enforceable. Discuss fully whether Peter is bound to the contract. An Agency Relationship was formed when Peter hired Alice as an agent to sell on his behalf a piece of real estate he owns. When an agency agreement is formed, certain duties are owed to the principal by the agent; the duty of loyalty and the duty of notification. The duty of loyalty states the agent has the duty to act solely for the benefit of his or her principal and not in the interest of the agent or a third party. The duty of notification states the agent is required to notify the principal of all matters that come to his or her attention concerning the subject matter of the agency. Alice failed to inform Peter about the fair market value of the property being at least $90,000 due to a shopping mall being built nearby. She also failed to act in the best interest of Peter since she formed a partnership with her cousin, Carl, to purchase the property for $65,000. Peter agrees to sell the property to Carl and signs the contract. Even though Peter signed the contract, Alice broke both duties she had to Peter as an agent, therefore, Peter is not bound to the contract. Neither Carl nor Alice can hold Peter to the contract due to Alice’s breach of fiduciary duties.
Scenario 2: Denton and Carlo were employed at an appliance plant. Their jobs required them to perform
occasional maintenance work while standing on a wire mesh twenty feet above the plant floor. Other employees had fallen through the mesh, and one of them had been killed by the fall. When their supervisor told them to perform tasks that would likely involve waking on the mesh, Denton and Carlo refused because they feared they might suffer bodily injury or death. Because they refused to do the requested work; the two employees were fired from their jobs. Was their discharge wrongful? If so, under what federal employment law? To what federal agency or department might they turn for assistance. Denton and Carlo were fired from their jobs at an appliance plant due to refusing to perform maintenance work while standing on a wire mesh twenty feet above the plant floor. In the past, an employee died due to falling through the wire mesh and others had been injured. Due to this, Denton and Carlo feared for their safety and advised their supervisor they would not stand on the wire mesh and perform the maintenance work. A wrongful discharge is when an employer discharges an employee in violation of an employment contract or a statutory law protecting employees. Denton and Carlo’s discharge was wrongful due to it violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. This is a federal act passed by Congress to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for every employee in the United States. Under this act, an employer cannot discharge an employee who files a complaint or who, in good faith, refuses to work in a high-risk area if bodily harm or death might result. Denton and Carlo, in good faith, refused to work on the wire mesh because of the high risk of bodily harm or death it presented. Denton and Carlo can turn to OSHA and file a complaint of retaliation against their employer for wrongful discharge.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help