Business Law Discussion

Joe MacDonald has a farm located in New York State.  And on his farm, he had a large apple orchard.  Due to his age, for the past several years he advertised in the local paper that he would hire local high school youth to pick apples, employing up to fifty kids (ages 14 to 17) to pick, help transport and pack apples in his warehouse. All the local parents supported this and urged their children to apply, as it was only a two-day event, in which a youth could make $100.00.  His lawyer and insurance agent both told him that there could be problems, as this was becoming a big event, and advised him to have the youths sign a waiver of indemnity in the event that they were injured while picking apples, which they all did on the day they showed up.

The youths, in order to reach the apples high up in the trees, were told to either climb the tree or use one of the wooden ladders provided.  These were two-section ladders that would extend to 24 feet, utilizing a manual locking mechanism.

Work is going smoothly until Joe sees three of the youth engaged in an apple war, throwing the picked apples at each other and other workers.  Joe tells them that they are fired and gives them each $20.00 for the four hours they worked.

While Joe is distracted firing the three youths, he told one of the older boys to take over and drive the tractor and continue to pick up the apples.  The youth who is not familiar with this tractor, does so, but at one point he steers the tractor incorrectly and strikes a couple of ladders at this one tree, knocking two kids to the ground suffering injuries.  Another youth, having his ladder at an extreme vertical angle, loses his balance and falls over, also injured.  MacDonald returns and also fires them, likewise giving them $20.00 each and telling them to leave.

The next night, the parents of all fifty-youth employed, get together and after a discussion, notify farmer MacDonald that they intend to sue on behalf of their children for the following specified reasons:

  • Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act – Child Labor
  • Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act – Minimum Wage
  • Violation of OSHA General Duty Standard – unsafe work place
  • Violation of OSHA General Duty Standard – Specific Duty Standards
  • Violation of workers compensation regarding employment – related injuries
  • Violation of wrongful termination of employees

Farmer MacDonald states that he has done no wrong and has the signed releases to show it.

Questions:

  1. Is this a violation of wrongful child labor? Explain
  2. Is farmer Joe violating the minimum wages act? Explain
  3. Does the new Farm Workers Bill/ Farm Laborers Fair Labor Practices Act enacted by Cuomo affect this case?  Explain
  4. Is this an unsafe work place? Explain
  5. Is this a violation of specific duty standards? Explain
  6. Are the waivers legal? Explain
  7. Did farmer Joe illegally fire the workers? Explain
 

Posted in Uncategorized

Business Law Discussion

Bruce “Basketball” Jones is the all-time leading scorer for ACME College, a consensus All American, and is considered a first-round draft pick for the upcoming NBA draft.  He hires and signs a contract with the leading firm in the country to represent him, known for the huge contracts that their clients receive.

The agency then goes out and makes a million-dollar video on Jones to send to all the NBA teams and to be played on national television to promote him.  On his final collegiate game, Jones suffers a minor ACL sprain and is not available for the playoffs, missing all of the games.

ACME College is eliminated in the initial Round of 64, with the broadcasters continuously telling of the injury Jones has, showing him in street clothes sitting on the bench.  At the draft, Jones was not selected until the third round, and all the press can talk about on ESPN is the falling stock of Jones.

A very bad team, the San Francisco Stinkers, selects Jones; Jones is not happy as he had initially been approached by a great team, and he makes a fuss in the papers.  The sports agent contacts Jones and tells him that he has tendered a contract with the Stinkers, and has tentatively agreed on his behalf that he will sign with the team for the league minimum.

The agent makes it quite clear that he is no longer premium stock, and that he only has a very small window to sign or there will be no deal, hence the reason the agent agreed for Jones on his behalf.  Jones is not happy, refuses to sign, and also refuses to pay the agency for any and all monies that they have incurred on his behalf, and also cites that he is going to sue them as he should have received a multi-million-dollar contract based upon his past performance.

He cites the following for the basis for his pending suit: poor Restatement of Agency, failure to live up to the promises of a Principal – Agent Relationship, he states he does not have to live up to the Principal’s Duty to Reimburse due to the low proposed contract, not obligated to the Principal’s Duty to Cooperate, as Jones states the agency lied, failed to fulfill Agent’s Duty to Perform, failed to fulfill Agent’s Duty to Notify, and can end this relationship without any costs to him under Termination of an Agency, along with Termination of an Agency by Impossibility to Perform.  The sports agency countersues under Wrongful Termination.

Questions:

  1. Does Jones have the right to sue the sports agency?
  2. Are the allegations of Jones correct?  Yes or No Explain your answer and support with legal rationale
  3. Are the allegations of Jones incorrect?   Yes or No Explain your answer and support with legal rationale
  4. Does the sports agency have a legal claim against Jones for Wrongful Termination? Yes or No Explain your answer and support with legal rationale

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized

Business Law Discussion

You are negotiating the purchase of a car from ACME Car Sales.  The most important part of this to you is that it is a red car, and you finalize a deal on the shade of red you want this car to be.  Your agent, Fred Frank states that he will write up the contract and you are to show up tomorrow to finalize the transaction.  To show intent on your part, you need to put a down payment of $1,000.00 today before you leave.  You do so and a receipt is given to you for a red car and you leave. 

The next day you return and all the paperwork is before you; literally mounds of paperwork that boggles your mind.  Page after page you place your signature in each required area.  With each new page, Frank is tells you what it is and that you do not need to read it as it us just a “legal formality”.  One bundle stapled together is ten pages long, and he indicates where to sign it on the last page, not showing you the other pages. 

Finally, you are done and he gives you the keys to your new car.  Going outside you look for your red car and Frank points out your new car, a bright yellow car!  You angrily tell him that it is not the car you wanted, but Frank responds by saying you signed the contract for a yellow car.

Looking over the paperwork, you discover in the ten page bundle the words ‘yellow’ handwritten on the outer margin overruling the word ‘red’ throughout the document.  You state that “…this is an invalid contract and as you are a Business Law student at CCC, this is a violation of the parol evidence rule…”!!!  His response is that, again, you signed the document accepting the contract of the car, which included the color yellow clearly handwritten in the margin AND he was also a student in Business Law at CCC and parol evidence is not admissible in a court. 

Questions:

  1. Is this a valid contract? Explain.
     
  2. Does the handwritten ‘yellow’ supersede the typed word ‘red’? Explain.
     
  3. Was there any indication of fraud on the part of Frank? Explain.
     
  4. Is this an example of the parol evidence rule? Explain.
     
  5. Do you have a valid complaint against ACME Car Sales? Explain.
 

Posted in Uncategorized

Business Law Discussion

TOPIC

Karen is 17 years old and graduating from a high school in New York State.  She wants to enter into the US Army but her parents will not allow it, so she forges authorization from an adult who is not her parent and is sworn into service.  Her parents are quite upset with her and tell her she is banished from the home as a result. 

While in the service at a military base out of New York State, she purchases a car and begins making payments with her military pay.  Further, she meets someone and gets married, but this is short-lived and the marriage gets annulled.  However, after getting in trouble in the Army she is given a general discharge at age 19 and returns home, as the mother forgave her and wants her back home. 

With no insurance or job, bills begin to accrue including the car payments.  GMAC, the lender, inform the father that he is responsible for the car payment as she is living back in the household.  Further, Karen tells the father that he is required to pay for the car, as this is one of the items under ‘Necessaries of Life’. 

The father, irate, tells GMAC that his daughter was legally emancipated and he is not responsible for the bills, and also tells the daughter that she needs to sell the car as it is not within the scope of ‘Necessaries of Life’.

General rules for emancipation:

      A child is emancipated if he/she:

  • is over the age of 16;
    • does not live with either parent (living away from home for college does not count if the plan is to return home between semesters);
  • does not receive money from either parent unless the court ordered child support or if the child receives Social Security benefits;
  • has a job as the main source of income; and
  • is not in foster care or under court supervision;

     •  If a child is in the military or is married, the child is emancipated

Questions:

  1. Is Karen emancipated under NYS Law? Explain.
  2. Is the car falling under the guidelines for Necessaries of Life? Explain.
  3. Are the parents responsible for Karen due to her prior actions?  Explain.
 

Posted in Uncategorized

Business Law Discussion

Discussion Topic:

 

You need to know the following NYS definition of Dram Shop Law for this question:

New York dram shop law is found in section 11-101 of the New York General Obligations law. Under this law, it is illegal for businesses to serve alcohol to persons who are visibly intoxicated. The definition of “visibly intoxicated” is left largely to the discretion of the employee who serves the alcohol. Tell-tale signs of visible intoxication may include slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and lack of physical coordination.

 

New York is unique in that patrons themselves may not sue the business establishment. Instead, the bar or tavern may be held liable for damages caused to third parties who were injured by the patrons of the bar who were served alcohol. For example, if a bar serves a person alcohol, then that person drives away and injures another person in a car accident, the people injured may sue the bar for contributions.

 

In order for the drinking establishment to be held liable, the plaintiff must prove:

 

  • The person who injured them was intoxicated
  • The defendant (the bar or tavern) sold or provided liquor to the intoxicated person
  • The defendant also caused or contributed to the person’s subsequent intoxication 

http://ypdcrime.com/vt/article31.htm#t1194

 

The ACME Police Department, having complaints of underage drinking at the ACME Bar & Grill, enter without a warrant and conduct an Alcoholic Beverage Control Act underage drinking check.  Officers find Wile E. Coyote, Jr., age 18, at the bar and visibly drinking a beer.  On approach they ask for his identification and he presents them with a fake ID card.  He is removed from the bar and charged with violations of underage drinking and forged identification, as the ID card looked nothing like him.  Further, the bartender is told to step outside to the patrol car where he is arrested for Prohibited Sale of Alcoholic Beverage to a Minor and the Penal Law charge of Unlawfully Dealing with a Child.  Forms were filed with NYS to have the business’s license to sell alcoholic beverages suspended or revoked.  Both the bartender, the bar owner and Coyote plead Not Guilty to the charges.  Coyote states that he was not read his Miranda Warnings when arrested and that it was an unlawful search by the police, as they do not have the right to check for identification.  The bartender also claims that the police had no right entering the establishment unannounced, and that he, too, was never read his warnings.  Further, there was no proof that he ever served the beer to the minor.  Lastly, the bar owner said that the license punishment should be negated, as Coyote showed valid NYS identification to the bartender, even though it was not his.  He claims the bartender is not required to secure multiple proofs of identification.

 

            Hint – check both Sections 65 of the NYS Alcoholic Beverage Control Act

 

            https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ABC/65-C

 

            https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ABC/65

 

  Complete the following to engage in the discussion process

 

Questions:

 

  1. Were the actions of the police entering the bar legal?
  2. Was this an illegal search by the police when asking for identification from Coyote, as there was no proof of a crime having been committed at that time?
  3. Were the police required to read Miranda Rights to Coyote?
  4. Were the police required to read Miranda Rights to the bartender?
  5. Do the police have sufficient probable cause to file for the revocation of the bar license?
  6. Create one question to pose to the class regarding this case.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized

Business Law Discussion

TOPIC

The ACME gas station on the corner is privately owned and operated, and it seems that the local operator, Wile E. Coyote has not been paying the proper amount of sales tax to NYS.   After multiple warnings and prior notice from the State advising him of the unpaid monies owed, agents with the NYS Department of Taxation and the local ACME Police Department show up at the station. Mr. Coyote is told to open the business safe and the cash register, and also provide them with all his business records along with access to his computer.  He does NOT comply, rather he states that he will not do anything until he speaks to his lawyer.  At this point he is ushered outside by the police, all the items requested are secured and taken by the Tax Agents.  When he wants to know more, they refuse and padlock the premises.  He is told that agents will be contacting him later, which they do in one week, and arrest him for Tax Evasion, Fraud and Grand Larceny.  He pleads not guilty and files a lawsuit against both the State and the city for negligence, injury and loss of income. 

Questions:

  1. Is this a valid Tort filed by Wile Coyote?
  2. Were his rights violated when he requested his lawyer?
  3. Were the agents within their legal boundaries to do what they did?
  4. Should he be awarded monies for lost wages and other claims?
  5. Post your answers to Questions 1 – 4 as your main post.
 

Posted in Uncategorized