Canadian Business Law
Canadian Business Law
Your writing is to be between 500-600 words. To say something of merit in that short of space
requires some planning and precise thinking. In your submission, please identify which option
you have chosen. properly speak on your topic, you will need to learn of the issues to comment
on the questions asked. This is done by spending time with the course materials and through
research online. Remember that your approach is to 1) understand the issue, 2) take a position
on the issue, and 3) provide reasoning to support your position. The most important part of your
writing is the reasoning you provide and should comprise the bulk of your submission.
Here are 2 questions, please pick the ONE you would like to address:
Question #1:
The law relating to frustration of contract states that if that which caused non-performance of a
contract is beyond the control of the non-performing party, then that non-performing party is
excused from performance. This is all well and dandy for the non-performing party, but what if
the other side has relied upon the contract, and incurred costs in anticipation of the contract
being performed? For example, ABC Entertainment Inc. (ABC) enters a contract with a
renowned violinist who agrees to perform on a specific date for $x dollars. ABC agrees to take
care of all aspects of organizing the concert i.e. renting the venue, advertising, selling tickets,
etc. and incurs costs in doing so. On the day of the concert, the violinist breaks her arm in a car
accident caused by the other driver. Obviously, she cannot perform the concert, she claims
frustration, and according to law, walks away from her legal obligations; she is fully discharged.
ABC, on the other hand, is left to foot the bill of all expenses incurred leading up to the concert.
Why should ABC be the party who suffers 100% due to the accident and the violinist bear no
legal liability? Both parties are “innocent” in the sense that neither caused the breach, and yet
only one seems to suffer. Please discuss if you believe that the law is fair in this circumstance?
Why or why not, and how would you alter the law to make it “fair” to both parties? Should
frustration be a valid reason to terminate a contract?
Questions #2:
The law does not require that a contract be written down to be legally binding. Interpretation of the final terms of the contract are left to what the parties understand from what each other said.
This leaves the door open for a lot of “he said, she said” and can cause confusion and
misunderstanding between the parties. Should verbal contracts be considered legally binding or
should the law require that all contracts be written and signed to be legally binding? If writing is
required, how much freedom should parties be given on how to draft the contract? What
evidence should a court be allowed to use to determine if parties intended for there to be a
contract (Parole Evidence Rule)?
Remember to just pick one question to address
