Relevant aspects of law to current business situations

at
Categories
Tags

 

 

 

Competencies
In this project, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following competencies:

Apply relevant aspects of law to current business situations
Differentiate between matters of law and matters of ethics in business situations
Scenario
The Friendly Dawg is a retail pet supply store owned by Dave Dawgs. Dave has worked in the store since high school and took over running the store after his father died two years ago. Originally the store sold only pet food and supplies, such as animal food, bird cages, water bowls, pet beds, and so forth. Upon taking ownership, Dave added fish tanks with fish for sale. Recently he built a kennel and cages in a former storage area in the rear of the store in order to sell live animals, such as snakes, birds, dogs, and cats. Landlord Lou came by during renovations and asked what was going on. One of Dave’s employees told Lou that The Friendly Dawg was expanding its inventory and needed the space. Landlord Lou told the employee, “Very exciting! Good luck!”

A few weeks later, landlord Lou began receiving complaints from the neighboring tenant, the Sunshine Yoga studio, that the noise from the dogs and parrots was very disruptive.

The signed lease between Dave Dawg’s deceased father and Lou describes the business as a pet supply store only and does not mention selling live animals. The lease specifies a rent in the amount of $500 a month. Sunshine Yoga does not have a written lease. The owner of Sunshine Yoga, Jasmine, met Lou one night in a bar two years ago where he verbally offered to rent her the space for $300 a month. Jasmine claims that landlord Lou told her that night that she could rent from him forever and that he would never evict her.

Lou called Dave, asking him to quiet the animals. Dave said he would try, but the complaints from Jasmine continued. Dave also demanded that Lou improve the air-conditioning system, claiming it was too hot in the rear of the store for his animals and it was causing them to become agitated. Landlord Lou refused, claiming that air-conditioning was not meant to cool that area and it was not his job as landlord to take care of live animals.

Dave stopped paying his rent, claiming that he was not obligated to do so because Lou was breaching his obligation under the lease to maintain the property in good repair. The next day, a dangerous snake escaped through the air vents and slithered into the neighboring yoga studio, frightening Jasmine, the owner, such that she had a heart attack.

After recovering, Jasmine stopped paying her rent, claiming that the premises were unsafe due to the presence of wild animals. She also claimed that she has been very depressed and anxious as a result of the ongoing situation. And she contends that she has lost clients because of the noise coming from The Friendly Dawg.

The Friendly Dawg has been a good tenant, enjoys a strong customer base, and pays more in rent than Sunshine Yoga. Sunshine Yoga has always been late with rent, and Jasmine constantly bothers Lou over minor issues.

Directions
Write two short papers—one on contract law and one on tort law.

Contract Law
Evaluate the potential rights, claims, defenses, obligations, and remedies for each party from the perspective of contract law. Determine whether landlord Lou has a right to evict either party. Use reliable resources, such as the textbook and other course resources, to support your evaluation. Specifically, include the following components in your evaluation:

Contract between The Friendly Dawg and landlord Lou
Analyze the scenario to determine whether a valid contract still exists between The Friendly Dawg and landlord Lou.
Explain the elements of a valid contract, and identify which contract elements, if any, exist between The Friendly Dawg and landlord Lou.
Analyze the potential rights, claims, defenses, obligations, and remedies available to both landlord Lou and The Friendly Dawg in this scenario.
Support your analysis by referencing specific legal principles or laws.
Contract between Sunshine Yoga and landlord Lou
Analyze the scenario to determine whether a valid contract still exists between Sunshine Yoga and landlord Lou.
Explain the elements of a valid contract, and identify which contract elements, if any, exist between Sunshine Yoga and landlord Lou.
Analyze the potential rights, claims, defenses, obligations, and remedies available to both landlord Lou and Sunshine Yoga in this scenario.
Support your analysis by referencing specific legal principles or laws.

 

Sample Solution

Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.
Hi, how can I help?