Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
Pages:
2 pages/≈550 words
Sources:
3 Sources
Style:
APA
Subject:
Law
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 8.64
Topic:

Briefing: Critical Legal Thinking Cases

Essay Instructions:

This is a business class; the questions must show how it affects business in the USA. Briefing Paper 3: Critical Legal Thinking Cases

Essay Sample Content Preview:
Briefing: Critical Legal Thinking Cases
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Critical Legal Thinking Cases
Section 15.1 Liability of a Franchisor – Martin v. McDonald’s Corporation
The Martin v. McDonald’s Corporation case affects business in the United States. The best-case scenario here is that McDonald’s Corporation is actually liable for negligence. McDonald’s Corporation in this situation had a duty of protecting Therese Dudek, Maureen Kincaid and Laura Martin, the plaintiffs from any harm. Even though McDonald’s Corporation did not particularly affirm that such duty was assumed, facts of the case support a determination that it voluntarily assumed a duty of protecting the plaintiffs and providing security to them. The moment it assumed the duty of providing protection and security to the plaintiffs, McDonald’s Corporation had the duty of performing this obligation with due competence and care, and any failure of doing that would result in a finding of breach of duty. For that reason, McDonald’s Corporation is seen to have violated its assumed duty to those three plaintiffs. A franchisor should establish security rules and demand its franchisees to follow them. Conversely, the worst-case scenario is that McDonald’s is in fact not guilty and it did not have the liability of protecting the plaintiffs since this corporation never had any particular relationship with them. Protecting the plaintiffs was the duty of the franchisee. Companies should not be held legally responsible for criminal actions of others (Leagle, 2009).
Section 14.3 Right to an Accounting – Steeby v. Fial
In the Steeby v. Fial case, the best case-scenario is that Charles Fial had in fact breached the partnership agreement by violating a fiduciary duty that he owed to Roger Steeby. Fial had contravened his fiduciary duty in many ways. These include terminating the auditors and in so doing dissipating the partnership’s assets; by ending contracts with clients of the partnership; and by taking over the partnership’s auditors and proceeding with work for the company he created that was essentially work of the partnership. The worst-case scenario is that Fial did not breach a fiduciary duty to Roger Steeby when he concealed...
Updated on
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

👀 Other Visitors are Viewing These APA Essay Samples: