Business Law
Final

Essay Question #2

Unfortunately, it sounds as if Carol was knowingly swindled. Whereas it would seem that Carol would be able to get John’s statements, “was a creampuff” and “this car runs like it was driven by a little, old lady”, she would not be able to. The comments that John made would be seen as puffery most likely. Puffery is unfortunately legal in the United States. A seller is allowed to make statements asserting their opinion of value that the buyer cannot rely on as the basis for the bargain. This is almost a “buyer beware” situation where John’s statements cannot be proven and are speculative in nature. “Creampuff” and “driven by a little, old lady” could also be open to interpretation. However, the statement that John made to Carol, “Definitely would pass inspection” is most definitely an express warranty. “Express warranties are specific promises made by the seller and include oral representations, written representations, descriptions of the goods or services, representations in samples and models, and proof of prior quality of the goods or services.” John made a promise to Carol and represented the car as being “definitely” able to pass inspection. The kid was also acting as an agent for Shady’s when he promised to fix Carol vehicle. Carol may run into the problem of not having a witness hear John’s statements to her and having his statements being considered hearsay. John’s statements about the car being able pass inspection could also be considered an implied warranty. Specifically, the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Also, Carol most likely has a case under her state’s lemon law. John misrepresented a car to Carol and under the federal lemon law, AS IS does not void the buyer’s rights under the lemon laws.

Essay Question #3

Because Loretta took the steps to report the activities to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and assuming she has any way of proving that this happened, she has a very strong case. The argument for the fact that Loretta has a history with drugs in the workplace is not evidence against alleged sexual harassment. Assuming the presented facts are true, Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment is very obvious. Quid Pro Quo, this for that, is when another employee or boss, for workplace incidents, demands sexual favors for certain rewards or for purposes of bribery/blackmail. “He said he knew that she needed the job, because she was fired from her previous job for drug problems. If she didn’t get along with him, he would fire her and tell people it was because she came to work stoned.” This is Quid Pro Quo because he tells her that unless she gives him what he is asking for, she will be fired. Loretta could possibly have a case for hostile work environment due to the stress that she was put under by the constant advances made by her employer. It is understandable that after a period of time, she would not have the desire to go in to work, let alone continue, which was shown by her quitting her job. Loretta could have a prime facie case against the gay bar since “at first sight” (prime facie) it would seem as if she was not hired because she is female and the bar only employs men. She could most likely have a case for sexual discrimination IF she were to be able to prove that she was not hired because she was female. In order for her to begin or continue the case prime facie, she has the burden of proof placed on her. She must present the evidence proving that she was directly discriminated against due to her gender.

Essay Question #4

Assuming the alleged acts can be proven, which may be a hard thing to do since there will most likely be little evidence if even Sadie could barely remember everything, it may be a hard sell. However, if there is even the slightest proof than Foghorn may be right in bringing his complaint against the church.
“If the employee or servant committed a civil wrong against a third party, the master or employer could be liable for the acts of their servant or employee when those acts were committed within the scope of the relationship. The third party could proceed against both the servant/employee and master/employer. The action against the servant/employee would be based upon the direct responsibility of the servant/employee for his conduct. The action against the master/employer is based upon the theory of vicarious liability, by which one party can be held liable for the acts of another.
Employer/employee relationships are the most common area wherein respondeat superior is applied, but often the doctrine is used in the agency relationship. In this, the principal becomes liable for the actions of the agent, even if the principal did not directly commit the act. There are three considerations generally:

1.Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency?
2. Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform?
3. Was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act?
The degree to which these are answered in the affirmative will dictate the degree to which the doctrine can be applied.” (Harvard Law Study material on Tort) Because the alleged incident happened during a church sanctioned picnic, during the time that Brother Billy was employed by the church, the church could be held liable even if he was only employed as an agent or contractor at the time. Although the church was not directly involved in the incident, Billy was acting as an agent of the church, meaning that both Billy and the church had a level of responsibility and accountability for Sadie’s safety.