Southern Oregon University
Business law – case study
The case study of John and Stacey has so many complicated elements that apparently all the stakeholders involved apart from the two mentioned could sue or be sued against. This paper assumes that this is the scenario for this paper. The characters involved are John and Stacy, a restaurant owner, the owner of a townhouse, the owner of the mink on which John tripped and subsequently resulted in a hip fracture, a blasting contractor, and the customer who accidently cut an expensive painting. From John’s point of view:
John apparently took Stacey to an expensive restaurant to impress her. The menu did not quote the prices of the food served in the restaurant, but John thought it was equal to the market price of similar eating places in Oregon. When the bill arrived (which by itself was pricey), the restaurant had charged an additional fifty percent of the price as fixed gratuity. Both the guests found the food to be extremely tasty. He was furious and threatened not to pay the bill. The owner apparently insults John. His problems are not over yet. He makes an apparent with another guest in the restaurant to rent a townhouse for ten thousand dollars which he was not able to comply with due to the circumstances mentioned below. He tripped against a mink coat accidently left on the floor and fractured his hip. John subsequently was ill because of contaminated food provided by the restaurant even though it tasted good. John could have a valid legal support in this regard with regard to willful negligence on the part of the restaurant owner. John was also apparently hit by glass fragments shattered due to the inadvertent mistake of a blasting contractor near to the restaurant. He could again sue the person for injuries caused. These are the issues faced by John in this case study. The fact the John had written to everyone involved that he had acted on behalf of a company formed by him and that the company had no funds does not appear to be a matter of concern in the case study. No one has filed a case against him. But it should be noted that John’s letter to the entire stakeholder’s that he had formed a limited company and that it had only a miniscule balance may not be a necessary protection for personal liability in case such an issue happens. Unless he had specifically mentioned that his credit card payment was made on his company’s behalf, he would be personally held liable in a legal dispute (The Spitz Law Firm). The only issue that could face John is if Stacey sues John for not keeping the appointment fixed for the next day at the townhouse. From Stacey’s viewpoint:
Stacey apparently was impressed by John’s wealth. She had dinner with John for which he paid by credit card. He made an invitation to spend a day in the townhouse which she accepted. But because of the accident, John could not keep his promise. She was upset by this and left him. Moreover, she had rented a coat for that day for one thousand dollars. Since the meeting would not take place, she demanded a refund of the rent she had paid for the dress. The renter refused the refund. The restaurant owner’ point of view:
The owner had apparently received payment for the food and services provided. His restaurant had not printed the prices of the items available on the menu. But this is not apparently illegal according to the Oregon Menu Labeling Act. It seems that the law requires only nutrient and calorie information and that too for a chain of fifteen or more restaurants (Oregon Government). But his building was damaged due to the negligence of a blasting contractor and could sue for damages. The blast also resulted in a guest tearing a valuable painting hung on the wall. Here again the owner could sue the person responsible. The restaurant owner also feels that serving contaminated or poor quality raw material was a business tactic. This is...