Sample Case Study Paper on Business law

1. The issue here is that Henry feels Jacob is bleaching the contract that they had agreed on.
Although the contract was not written, Henry feels that Jacob, his boss, takes advantage
of his position. On the other hand, Jacob decides to change his mind to extend the off for
Henry, but he does not provide reasons. According to law, whether there was a contract
between Jacob and Henry is answered by the law governing contract. According to the
rule of law, a contract must be in writing if it is impossible to perform it within one year.
Therefore, the contract between Henry and Jacob was valid because it was within one
year. This is why Henry has the feeling that Jacob is violating the contract and he is not
doing the right thing according to their agreement. Although the statute of fraud does not
authorize that the contract must be performed within one year, it only states the
possibility of completing the contract within a year. Therefore, in this case, Henry
believes his boss Jacob is bleaching the contract and going against the statute.
2. On the other hand, Jacob might be planning to change the date of the said off extension to
another date within the same year, although he has not hinted it to Henry. In this case, the
rule of law may be double-edged and allow the two to apply free will and agree on how

Mid-term examination: Business law case studies

2
to forge the way forward. Yes, Henry might feel the boss breached the contract, but one
year is not over to validate that claim. Jacob can change the date and still will be within
the boundaries of the law.
3. The issue in this scenario, Maurice wants to purchase a restaurant from Tod, who in turn
wants to change his nature of business. Maurice, however, requests that they have a
covenant with Tod that he will not open a restaurant near the place for one year to avoid
competition. The question of the rule of law must come in here. How does the law say
about the establishment of a business? The law does not limit the establishment of a
business. It is the role of the business owner to provide good services to attract his
customers. Therefore, according to the rule of law, however good it is drafted, the
covenant will be invalidated. The covenant cannot be enforced because the statute has no
law that can support this kind of a covenant; it is a mutual agreement that depends on
goodwill from both parties. However, the law protects business establishments and also
regulates the issue of monopoly. Therefore, Maurice can be protected in that Tod does
not take advantage of selling the property to him and then open another one next to his
denying him the business opportunity. So sale of such a business cannot be conducted if
the two parties do not have a mutual agreement rather than a contract.
4. In this kind of situation, the application of the rule of law is very complicated. For
instance, Millie indeed had no agreement with lawn service providers, and therefore she
is justified not to pay for the service. However, she saw the lawn service providers mow
her land and kept quiet, meaning she was taking advantage of the situation. Also, the
lawn service providers made a fault of not confirming from Paul which land belonged to
him. Therefore, Paul is justified by the rule of law to claim the lawn service's failure to

Mid-term examination: Business law case studies

3
mow his land or seek confirmation. For Millie, this is a declarative rule because it is true
that she never asked for her land to be mowed, and there was no agreement made
between the two parties. Whether Millie saw the mow the rule of law does not recognize
her land, the fact remains no contract existed between the two parties. Therefore, the
lawn service provider will lose the case, and no payment will be made to them by Millie.
However, they can establish another agreement with Paul after settling the first issue of
delay to do the farm later. Having said so, an exceptional rule can be used in such a case.
This rule applies where the rule does not apply but allows the use of the declarative rule.
The case here can only be ruled on the principle of the circumstances.
5. At first, there are no indicators that an agreement was established between Maurice and
the developer. Maurice probably is excited about the value his piece of land will gain.
Maurice adding a swimming pool ensured that his piece of land fetched him good returns,
but the developer was not aware of such ideas. Probably, the developer was sharing his
plans with Maurice while at the same time looking for an alternative. From the case
setting, there is no mention of an agreement, whether verbal or written. At this point,
Maurice is out of order and has nothing to complain about the developer. Therefore,
according to the rule of law, Maurice has no legal authority to claim anything from the
developer. His deeds show that he wanted to take advantage of the situation. I would,
therefore, advise Maurice to hold on to his plan to sell the home and wait until the
developer decides to do it or look for another potential buyer who could be willing to
purchase the home according to his expectations. Even if he decides to file a case against
the developer, he will lose because they had not agreed. I agree with the law because the

Mid-term examination: Business law case studies

4
developer should be protected. People like Maurice may take advantage of such
developers if the law does not protect them.