Answers for Business Law



Answers for Business Law

Question No. 1

In this case, Owen hired a licensed pest control company for getting free of destructive insects in his farm. The pest control company applied insecticides by a spray and the spray poisoned a nearby commercial fishing lake that was owned by Sparks. Then Sparks sued Owen, but the trial court found Owen not liable for damages as a matter of law because he had used an independent contractor. On appeal, there is no best argument for Sparks to hold Owen liable as Owen hired an independent pest control company. If someone is to be blamed is the pest control company as they have shown negligence and lack of care in their duty and material used (Kornhauser, & MacLeod, 2010). If Sparks want to win the case he should sue the company to get his loss refunded.

Question No. 2

In this case, Sanchez owned several businesses that were related to the repairing of trucks. In Columbus, Sanchez decided to build a consolidated repair facility and sought financing from Ohio Valley (OV) Bank. Sanchez was referred to Zilcher as the loan officer by the Bank staff. Zilcher promised to fund the building without informing Sanchez that he was only authorized to grant loans up to $25,000. After the loan amounts were extended to $200,000 to Sanchez, OV Bank refused to provide further financing. Sanchez was unable to find other financing to complete the building, and he defaulted on the loans made by OV Bank. The Bank sued in an effort to take Sanchez's assets as repayment for the loan. Sanchez filed a counter suit against the Bank for breach of contract. According to the breach of contract law, any information that is provided on the contract is not fulfilled by any of the party will be considered as breach of law. In this case, the OV Bank breached the law as they referred a wrong loan agent to Sanchez which can only grant up to $25,000. This was communicated wrong to Sanchez by the OV Bank; therefore, Sanchez will win the case.

Question No. 3

In this case, Ray and his 8 year old son David were struck in a downtown crosswalk by a delivery truck owned by SAS Corp. and driven by Rogers. Rogers had several alcohol drinks before reporting for work the evening of the accident. Police tested his blood and found the alcohol level at .18 percent following the event (.08 is legally drunk). David died, and Ray was severely injured. Ray sued SAS Corp. and Rogers for David's wrongful death and for negligence causing his own injuries. Trial evidence showed that the use of alcohol and marijuana was widespread at SAS Corp, and that the company made no effort to curtail it. SAS vehicles were often returned with empty beer cans, and one supervisor observing a driver smoking pot told the driver to “do it on the road, not here”. SAS is a liable to Ray on the death of his son ...