Case 1: Case of Devon Overstreet against Chicago Transit Authority.
Devon Overstreet starts as an active employee of the company known as Chicago Transit Authority. She works as a bus driver with the company for more than six years. This shows that she has had a longstanding history of a working relationship with the company. Although not stated in the case that she has had issues with the employment that has caused temporary termination. However, it is mentioned that for approximately six weeks, she has been unwell and this necessitated her to take sick leave since she had been out of work for more than six days. At this stage, Overstreet has not been terminated from her employment, and hence she is technically the employee of the Chicago Transit Authority.
In a twist of events, she is required to take a blood test to confirm the diagnosis and for the routine procedures conducted by employers. The blood test shows that she has been abusing a substance, which is cocaine. And according to the employer's regulations and rules, substance abuse is an absolute indicator for termination of duty. But normally the employee is given a chance to make amends by going to rehabilitation, and if they successfully undergo the process for the stipulated amount of time, then they stand a chance of being reinstated not necessarily to the same cadre. This is precisely what CTA does in the case of Overstreet. She files a case against CTA for compensation benefits, and the company contests her claim in a rejoinder.
Chicago transit authority will win this case because of the following reason. According to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), an employee will not and does not qualify for the unemployment compensation if they voluntarily quit employment, being involved in illegal
Activity or substance abuse while at work (Whittaker, 2014). In this case, the blood test confirms the presence of cocaine in a blood test. Cocaine is an illegal substance. So she is implicated by the fact that this substance was present in her blood system.
Case 2: Case of investors against Lazzaro, Bateman Eichler, Neadeau, and TONM.
T. O. N. M. Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation (TONM) is a company that participated in securities exchange where its stock was traded over-the-counter market. Leslie Neadeau was the president of this corporation as per the time it was being sued by the investors who bought stocks from the over the counter basing on "inside information." Charles Lazzaro was a registered securities broker employed by Batemen Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. (Bateman Eichler). Lazzaro makes false information to a potential investor persuading them to buy the stocks.
Lazzaro's false claims make the investors approach the TONM Corporation in a bid to confirm the claims. The corporation in an unprecedented move, decide not to disclose that the information by the securities exchange broker is just but a mere false. So this is a positive indicator that they are party to a scheme to defraud the investors. This act is contrary to section 10 (b) and violates the rights of the investor to truth full information. Section 10 (b) prohibits the use of manipulative and deceptive mechanisms in contravention of the rules and regulations prescribed by the SEC (Henderson, 2015). The defendants are in clear contravention of this act. As a result of the information being untruthful, the investors suffer damages due to the decline of the shares price below the purchasing price.
The investors will win the case because of the following reason. Even though Rule 10b-5 is not restricted to purchases and sales of securities of reporting companies, the defendant's negligent conduct does not violate section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Hence the defendants should refund the profits acquired illegally to the plaintiff as required by the law for contravening the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Case 3: Case of Sharon Love against Monarch Apartments
Sharon enters into an agreement lease with the owner of the apartment (Monarch). She was not aware of the condition of the apartment. She moved to the apartment and after a short while she noticed that the apartment is infested by termites. These termites cause a serious problem to her and make the comfort of the apartment to be heavily dented as it also affects her child. The apartment is certainly not fit for habitation due to the infestation by termites, clouds of dirt coming from the peeling walls, which persist despite several attempts to fumigate the house.
She gets moved to another apartment which is equally bad and not fit for habitation. Roaches that crawl all over the walls and ceiling infest the second apartment. Even though the property owner acts to resolve the problem, it still persists. This is a clear contravention of the Implied Warranty of Habitability, which provides that the leased premises must be fit, safe and suitable for ordinary residential use. Love is frustrated due to the unresolved issues she is facing with the Monarch apartment, and she opts to vacate the premises in a bid to look for some other habitable place.
In this case, the property owner is liable to the tenant (Sharon). This is because the Implied Warranty of Habitability puts all the responsibility of ensuring a habitable house to the proprietor. In the case where the tenant makes repairs to the house, the property owner is supposed to refund the cost or deduct the cost from the rent payable (LaMance, 2018). The property owner is obligated to find a solution to the problem, failure to which the tenant can opt out of the lease agreement. An inhabitable place is a contravention of Implied Warranty of Habitability. Love lawfully terminated the lease, and she will win the case.
Cheeseman, H. R. (2016). Business Law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues. Boston : Pearson Education, Inc.
Henderson, M. (2015). Security Regulation: Cases and Materials. St. Paul, MN : West Academic Publishing
LaMance, K. (2018) Implied Warranty Of Habitability Lawyers | LegalMatch Law Library. [online] Legalmatch.com. Available at: https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/implied-warranty-of-habitability-lawyers.html [Accessed 15 Dec. 2018].
Whittaker, J. M., Isaacs, K. P., & Library of Congress. (2014). Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service
Cite this page
Business Law Cases Paper Example. (2022, Nov 06). Retrieved from https://proessays.net/essays/business-law-cases-paper-example
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- Research Paper Sample on the Apple vs. Samsung Case
- Evaluation Essay on Restaurant
- Gun Control Annotated Bibliography
- Should Juveniles Receive Life Sentences and Tried as Adults - Essay Sample
- Business and Entrepreneurship: An Essential Part of Education - Essay Sample
- Capital Punishment: Obsolete and Unethical? - Essay Sample
- Essay on Nike's Gender Pay Gap: Lawsuit Implications & Analysis