Business Law Case Study Final Paper
Final Paper Case Study 11
In the Final Paper (Case Study) it speaks to the following case and circumstances. Knarles and Barkley are father and son respectively. Barkley is seventeen years old. They operate a facilities maintenance company that regularly does business in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. The company is based in Maryland. They have a number of contracts with building owners where they have agreed to provide building maintenance to both residential and commercial buildings within the three jurisdictions already mentioned. They receive a monthly payment of $2,000 to $4,000 depending upon the size of the building. They bill the owners for any equipment of a substantial nature that has to be replaced. Because of Knarles long-term relationships with building owners, these contracts that were once in writing are generally renewed without a new written agreement. Often Knarles and Barkley will replace outdated and broken equipment such as water heaters and boilers that are part of a building's heating system. Further, as part of maintenance they regularly wash windows, remove snow and do touch-up painting as required.
Knarles and Barkley have four full-time employees. One of the employees is a licensed plumber in the District of Columbia. His yearly license renewal is paid by the firm as part of an employment agreement that was negotiated four years ago. That agreement was in writing and was for a period of two years. It was the second such agreement entered into between said employee and Knarles and Barkley. The license, through inadvertence on the part of Barkley, was not renewed this year. In the past Knarles had taken care of this, but he had assigned this duty to his son so he might gain experience in what was involved in the license renewal process.
While Knarles is away in Hawaii at a “green facilities maintenance trade show,” Barkley is
approached by a building owner, Ian Chetum, in northern Virginia who has heard of their
In the Final Paper (Case Study) it speaks to the following case and circumstances. Knarles and Barkley are father and son respectively. Barkley is seventeen years old. They operate a facilities maintenance company that regularly does business in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. The company is based in Maryland. They have a number of contracts with building owners where they have agreed to provide building maintenance to both residential and commercial buildings within the three jurisdictions already mentioned. They receive a monthly payment of $2,000 to $4,000 depending upon the size of the building. They bill the owners for any equipment of a substantial nature that has to be replaced. Because of Knarles long-term relationships with building owners, these contracts that were once in writing are generally renewed without a new written agreement. Often Knarles and Barkley will replace outdated and broken equipment such as water heaters and boilers that are part of a building's heating system. Further, as part of maintenance they regularly wash windows, remove snow and do touch-up painting as required.
Knarles and Barkley have four full-time employees. One of the employees is a licensed plumber in the District of Columbia. His yearly license renewal is paid by the firm as part of an employment agreement that was negotiated four years ago. That agreement was in writing and was for a period of two years. It was the second such agreement entered into between said employee and Knarles and Barkley. The license, through inadvertence on the part of Barkley, was not renewed this year. In the past Knarles had taken care of this, but he had assigned this duty to his son so he might gain experience in what was involved in the license renewal process.
While Knarles is away in Hawaii at a “green facilities maintenance trade show,” Barkley is
approached by a building owner, Ian Chetum, in northern Virginia who has heard of their
References: Bookman Vs. Cavalier Court, Inc. 93 S.E 2d 318,198 Va.183 (). Breach of Covenant of Good Faith. Cavuoto Vs. Buchanan County Department Of Social Services 605 S.E 2d 287,44 Va.App,326 (). Battery. Ewell Vs. Boutwell 138 Va. 402,121 S.E 912 (1924, June). Defamation. Gina Chin & Associates, Inc. Vs. First Union Bank 260 Va. 533,537 S.E 2d 573 (). Respondant Superior. Greeman Vs. Yuba Power Products 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963). Strict Product Liability. Hannan Vs. Dusch, 153 S.E 824, 154 Va.356 (). Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment. Mosell Reality Corp. Vs. Schofield 33 S.E 2d 774, 183 Va. 782 (). Implied Agency. Sensenbrenner Vs.Rust, Orling, And Neale 374 S.E. 2d 55,236 Va. 419 (). Professional Negligence. Shenandoah Miling Co. Vs. Phosphate Products Corp. 171 S.E 681, 161 Va. 642 (). Breach of Contract. Strother Vs. Lynchburg Trust And Savings Bank 156 S.E 426, 155 Va. 826 (). Incapacity.