Case Analysis Essay: Ware Else Versus Ofstein

Introduction

The Ware Else. Inc. versus Ofstein case was held at the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. The Ware Else Inc. and Ware enterprises were the appellants, and the appellee was Susan of the Ofstein Company. It was presented that the appellants engaged in the business of providing temporary as well as permanent personnel for the foodservice industry. Ware enterprise conducts business and has an office in Florida. However, Ware Else does not have offices in Florida, and it is the primary company.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

It is presented that Enterprises tasked Ms. Ofstein with the duty of being the management recruiter and a letter of agreement was drafted. Ms. Ofstein subsequently requested to sign the Nondisclosure agreement. The deal both named Ware Enterprises and Ware else as the employer to Ms. Ofstein. However, Ms. Ofstein was fired 18 months later by ware enterprises. Correspondingly, Ofstein documented a two count complaint to the Circuit Court of Orange Country, Florida. The first count involved Ofstein asking for compensation ostensibly owed by her pursuant in the conditions of her employment underpinned by the letter of agreement. However, the message of the deal did not contain any specific venue. In the second count, Ms. Ofstein attempted to get a declaratory compensation regarding the comprehension, viability, and enforcement of the letter of agreement which contained some of the conditions of her employment.

The appellants retaliated by dismissing the second count of Ms. Ofstein's allegations since it lacked a specific venue. Before the court hearing, Ms. Ofstein ensued and affidavit to contradict the appellants by stating that there was unfair bargaining power between her and the appellants. Also, there were no live testimonies presented during the hearing. Ms. Ofstein recorded in the Affidavit that the vice president of Ware else approached her shortly after she was hired and she submitted the Nondisclosure Agreement. She also explained that she was directed that it was a mandate for new employees to sign the form, although it was not discussed or negotiated before and she explains it as being an order. However, the Appellants refuted the allegations against them as in Ofstein's affidavit. The appellants were denied the motion as the court dismissed their concept of improper venue. The appellant's proposal was rejected on the basis that the notion that there was an inappropriate venue in Orange Court was not complete because the previous case did not involve the practice of judicial discretion or fact-finding. Therefore, the court dismissed the argument by stating that it was not of judicial discretion to decide, but instead, they had the option of moving the case to any other legal body concerned with the issues of law.

Conclusion

In the case, as presented above there was a breach of contract where Ms. Ofstein's employment was terminated, and this was against the letter of agreement signed. It was unethical for Ware Else and Ware Enterprises to terminate the employment at their pleasure by stating that the letter of agreement had an improper venue. The venue is always proper in a specific forum but is however not an aspect of the judicial decision. However, I consider the whole case as being unethical, since it was unfair to dismiss the case on the basis that the contract was unenforceable. It is inequitable to repudiate a contract, on the basis that it was unreasonable or unjust. It was ethical for Ms. Ofstein to seek enforcement of the agreement because it was unfair for her to be terminated, before the deadline of the contract.