Law course assignment

The issue here is whether Demi was sexually discriminated by her employer who required her to change her dressing code. In the ancient times, the laws did not recognize a command to an employee to change his/her dressing attire as sexual discrimination. But times have changed and women nowadays can wear trousers. In some working places, trousers serve as uniform for women employees.

In the case of Owen vs. professional Gold Association, it was held that an instruction to a female employee to change her dressing from that of a skirt to trousers amounted to sexual discrimination.

Relating to the above principles to Demi’s case and assuming that Demi’s case is a recent one, it was improper for the manager to command Demi on how to dress and dismiss her on such basis. It is urged that apart from revealing the sex of an employee, the dressing code is of no any other help. It does not add any value to the enterprise and most importantly, it violates the human rights code.

But according to the Canadian Human Rights Act, employees are required to follow the laid down rules governing the dressing code. And this is regarded not to amount to violation of any human rights unless the dressing rules prohibit them from their religious or cultural beliefs and practices. Therefore according to the Canadian Laws, Demi would not have any legal redress against   her former employer. Unless she proves otherwise and gives genuine reasons as to why she wanted to wear trousers may be on religious or gender grounds, managers would carry the day.

b. One of the paths that Roger Federbear will have to use in his fight against genetically modified foods is the concerned bureau of standards. This agency will have to check from a sample any hazardous effects of genetically modified foods. Tests/experiments can be carried on certain specimens with control specimens put in place to determine any impacts of the foods. He can also directly bring out an injunction through the spot courts to stop any individual or firm from further production of such foods. This would be the most appropriate legal path because it acts immediately. The production and sale of genetically modified foods will have to be stopped immediately, pending investigations.

Another option which might be available but which might not be any better than the one above would be exemplary damages. With an example of a person who had earlier consumed some genetic food and developed complications, Roger Federbear can request the courts to bring such a person before the courts. He would then sue for exemplary damages whose objects will be not only to compensate him but to deter other would be perpetrators. The judgment would in other words form a precedent for similar future cases and in the end the production, sale and subsequent consumption of genetically modified foods would cease.

2. Sunshine has an action against Ziyi for breach of contract. According to contract law, all the parties much adhere to the rules and regulations governing the contract. And to determine whether the plaintiffs should have an action against the defendants, it must be established whether the terms of the contract were breached. [1]

For a contract to be valid, offer and acceptance are very essential elements. Sunshine made the offer of purchasing 1,000 4 – kilogram bags of mandarins which offer Ziyi Tang accepted. Ziyi Tang cannot therefore turn back and deny what she had consented to. Even if 500 bags would not be supplied with absolute certainty, Ziyi agreed that she could supply the other 500.

Ziyi has now completely refused to supply any mandarins simply because she has realized that the price of the mandarins has shot up. She now intends to sell the fruits elsewhere. By doing this, it means Ziyi has so far terminated the offer of supplying mandarins. This amounts to a counter – offer. A counter – offer terminated the original offer.

Again Ziyi did not communicate to Sunshine her decision not to sell mandarins to Sunshine. She waited until Sunshine called her. Sunshine has aright to sue Ziyi for not communicating her revocation of the offer. Revocation of offer must be communicated to the party revoking it either the offeror or the offeree.

It is possible for Sunshine to bring an action of specific performance against Ziyi requiring that the latter perform what she was under an obligation to do.

On the other hand, Ziyi can defend herself by alleging that the terms of the contract were vague/ ambiguous. It is not clear how many bags of Mandarins Sunshine require. In the verbal / oral agreement he states that he wants 1000 bags. At the end of the week, he calls Ziyi to tell her that he is comfortable with either 1000 or 500 bags where the terms of contract are ambiguous and can be argued that there was no contract at all.

The rule of acceptance of an offer is that acceptance once made cannot be worked. Ziyi accepted Sunshine’s offer and then revoked it. This gives Sunshine a right to sue her. It is irrelevant whether acceptance was by word of mouth or in writing.

3. Kiki has offered to sell Sasha has jeep for $5,000. His offer to sell the jeep is valid because an offer may be made orally or by conduct. The terms of the offer are quite clear and cannot be ruled out on grounds of ambiguity.

However, there is not acceptance in this case. Hence, there is no valid contract. Under the rules governing acceptance, acceptance or the lack of it is effective immediately. The letter of acceptance is posted or e- mailed. It will not matter whether or not the letter crossing Kiki’s offer reached him or not. Kiki has, through the courts, compel Sasha to prove his claims that he replied the E – mail canceling his (Kiki’s) offer.

In Household Fire Insurance Co. V Grant, the defendants applied for shares in the company of the plaintiffs. The offer was accepted and a letter of allotment was posted to the defendants. Unfortunately the letter never reached the defendants who later refused to take up shares. It was held that the contract was complete when the letter was placed on the postal box. The defendants were liable to take up their shares.

In Kiki’s case, the mail rejecting the offer became effective when Sasha clicked the “send” button. There is an implied authorization by the offeror when he makes his offer by post/ mail that the same be accepted, through post/ mail. Kiki did not expressly tell Sasha not to reply by post. Therefore it was implied that Sasha was to use the same communication mode to reply his acceptance or refusal to accept Kiki’s offer. Kiki cannot therefore demand that Sasha ought to have used a faster means of communication.

A mail as a form of communication is not an instantaneous form of communication. Legally, where there is such a communication between the parties the contract is only complete when the acceptance is received by the offeror. In Entores Ltd Vs Miles Far East the plaintiffs in London made an offer by telex to the defendants through their agent in Holland. Acceptance of the offer was communicated and received by the plaintiffs on their telex machine in London. The court had to determine whether the contract was made in London or in Holland. It was held that since communication by telex was instantaneous, the contract was concluded in London where the acceptance was received by the offeror.

But unlike the above case, the case at hand does not involve instantaneous communication hence there was no valid contract.

It can also be viewed that Sasha made a counter offer which legally extinguishes the original offer.

In Hyde V Wrench, offered in writing to sell his farm to Hyde for £1,000 W. refused to accept the counter off. It later agreed with the original offer of £1,000 but W refused to accept. In a suit for specific performance, it was held that there was no contract.

4. One of the legal issues arising from this case is that of privity of contract. A contract creates rights and obligations only between parties related to it.

A contract does not confer rights on a stranger nor does it impose obligations on a stranger. By using a standard contract, the Mozarts and Wagners made a legal error since this document did not bind them. The Wagners have a right to deny liability of providing the appliances or fancy drapes and Persian carpets. Under the sale of Goods Act Such a contract with such a value of $15000 could have been put in writing. If otherwise, the contract will be unenforceable. But the Mozarts would have a right to enforce a contract of Record through the courts to get the appliances/fancy drapes and Persian carpets.

A contract of Record encompasses court judgments and personal recognisances. But in this case, they can enforce a court judgment. Their rights will be absorbed in the judgment. And when the judgment is entered on the court’s record it forms a contract of Record between the parties which are in dispute.

The Mozarts thought that the items were included in the contract but the Wagners thought otherwise. After hearing both sides the courts would deliver its judgment that the Wagners must provide the appliances or fancy drapes and Persian carpets in the house. Whether they like it or not, they would be under legal obligation to provide the items.

Further, the Mozart had paid an extra $ 15000 which was meant for the appliances, fancy drapes and Persian carpets. This money was not meant for the house since already $ 100,000 had been cleared and the balance ($ 400,000) agreed upon when to be paid. Therefore$15000 amounted to new consideration which ought to have been supported with another fresh consideration. Legally, there must be a something for something or quid pro quo. There is no something for nothing. They Mozarts have then a right to be provided for the items in the house because they had paid extra money on them.

However, on the other hand the Wagners might be justified in not providing for the items by claiming that the consideration that the Mozarts gave amounted to past consideration which is not good consideration. The act of providing the items in the house came after the original contract/promise (of providing the house) had been completed and sealed. In fact the $ 15000 for the appliances was paid on the date of closing.

In Remcardle’s case, 1951, the occupants of a house on their own carried out repairs and decoration on the house. On completion of the work, the landlord promised in writing ₤500 to be paid to the plaintiffs for the work done. It was held that the contract was unenforceable since the promise to pay was based on past consideration.

5. Both parties in this case i.e. Tom and Nicole do not harbor any capacity to enter into binding contracts. Tom is only 17 years old. Normally a contract in which one or both parties lack capacity for instance due to infancy is considered to be voidable. Tom and Nicole were able to enter into their respective contracts and enforce them as they did but also had a right to avoid the contracts. Voidable means that the contracts are valid until avoided. [2]Under the Canadian laws the state must protect the interests of those citizens who cannot contract due to incapacity.

 Tom Gum Drivers may escape liability on the basis of the provision in the agreement with Tom that he was not to engage in any race or contest. They new this could amount to a trading contract which does not bind minors. In Canada, a minor is one who is under 18 years. In Mercantile Union Guarantee Vs Ball (1977), a minor purchased on hire purchase a lorry for use in his haulage contractor business. It was held that this was a trading contract rather than a contract for necessaries and so the infant was not bound.

In conclusion, Top Gun Drivers had singed up a contract with an inexperienced party (minor). They would be responsible for the damages incurred. The Canadian Laws stipulate that a minor is not liable for any liabilities for contracts entered with it unless they are for the supply of necessaries or they are beneficial contracts of service. Again, the Canadian Laws allow a minor to ratify his earlier contract when he was a minor upon attaining the age of majority. Tom therefore has a right to ratify his contract in future.

Contracts with mentally disordered persons are voidable at their option but it must be proved that the other party was aware of his mental condition. The Canadian Laws on contracts with insane persons again allow for their protection by the state against their abuse. An insane person is bound by contracts made during lucid intervals (sober). If a person is temporarily incapable of understanding what he is doing, because of mental illness, the contract would be valid unless: -

-         He can prove that at the time of entering into the contract he was suffering from mental instability.

-         The other party new or ought to have known this disability.

The only right/ option available for urban motors is to prove that at the time the contract was made they did not know that Nicole was mentally challenged. And if it can be proved that at the time of the contract, Nicole was Lucid (sober) then she would be responsible for the damages to the car. This is because the contract clearly stipulates that she was to be responsible for the damages above $100. Failure for urban motors to prove the above facts will leave Nicole with the right of not being subjected to any legal suit on the basis of her unfitness.

In the criminal laws of Canada, a mentally disordered [3]party has a legal defense by excuse i.e. by proving that he/she was mentally ill at the time of the contract. This is even upheld in section 16 of the Canadian criminal code.

References

Emanuel, S. L. (2004): Fundamental of Business Law, 4th Edn, Sydney, Educational Publisher Emerson R. W (2003): Business Law, 5th Edn, Sydney, Educational Publisher

Jertz, A., Miller L. R, (2004): Fundamentals of Business Law, 3rd Edn, London,

Macmillan Publisher

Penrose, R (2005): Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, Sydney, Longman Publisher [1] Emanuel, S. L. (2004): Fundamental of Business Law, 4th Edn, Sydney, Educational Publisher [2] Emerson R. W (2003): Business Law, 5th Edn, Sydney, Educational Publisher

[3] Jertz, A., Miller L. R, (2004): Fundamentals of Business Law, 3rd Edn, London, Macmillan Publisher