ACTG2P40 ASSIGNMENTNO.2 FALL2020

Chapters 7 and8

Question1

Patrick, a wealthy lawyer from Port Colborne undertook to contribute $2,000,000.00 to Brock University's capital campaign, payable in 4 annual instalments of $500,000.00. On the occasion whenPatrickmadethepledgethePresident oftheUniversitystatedthattheUniversitywouldnow be able to undertake the construction of an additional building and continue with its application to establish an accredited law school. A picture of Patrick and the University President was published in the local paper and on the University's website together with a news item about Patrick's generous contribution to thecampaign.

OnemonthlaterPatrickaskediftheUniversitywouldnamethenewlawschoolbuildingafterhim. The President agreed and said the University would be honoured to call the new building "Patrick Hall" in recognition of hispledge.

One year later, following payment of the first instalment of the pledge and as construction wasabout to begin, the President contacted Patrick and advised him that in accordance with the University's naming policy, the University had recently entered into an agreement with Andrew, another lawyer from Port Colborne, to name the new building, once completed, "Andrew Hall". Andrew had agreed to pay $5,000,000.00 for the naming rights for a period of 20 years from the completion of thebuilding.

ThePresidentadvisedPatrickthatalecturehallinthebuildingwouldnowbenamedafterPatrick.

Patrick advised the University that it had breached their agreement and he would not be making any further payment. Patrick demanded the immediate return of the $500,000.00 he hadpaid.

The University responded that it had hired architects and engineers, had closed off a parking lot, entered into a construction contract and commenced construction based on Patrick's promise and would be commencing legal action against Patrick for the balance of$1,500,000.00.

Required:Discuss the application of the principles of consideration andinjurious reliance/equitable estoppel to the facts of this case. Will the University or Patrick succeed in the legal action?Is there additional information which might affect theresult?

Question2

Erica'sneighbour,Brad,hasbeenemployedasamechanic forCentral Serviceforthelast15years. Erica, a student of business law, is aware that Brad has never acquired a mechanic's licence.Erica'scar is in need ofmajorrepairsbut shehas no savings.Consequently, sheconcoctsa

scheme to have the repairs done without charge. At the Brock library Erica locates the following excerpt from the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's QualificationAct.

11(2) Nopersonshallworkorbeemployedasamotorvehiclemechanicunlessthe person holds a subsisting certificate ofqualification.

(3)No person shall employ any person as a motor vehicle mechanic unless the person employed holds a subsisting certificate ofqualification.

PenaltyProvision:

26(1)Everyperson,

(a)who contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offenceandonconvictionisliabletoafineofnotmorethan$10,000.00.

Erica takes her car to Central Service and has the engine replaced, specifying that Brad make the mechanical repairs. Brad does an excellent job in repairing the vehicle. Central Service presents Erica with a repair bill for $3,000.00 ($2,000.00 for parts; $1,000.00 for labour). Erica promises to drop off a cheque the next day and drives the car home. She then sent the following email to CentralService:

As the repairs to my vehicle have been performed by an unlicensed mechanic contrary to Section 11 of the Apprenticeship and Trademen's Qualifications Act, and because I am not yet18yearsold,Iamnotlegallyobligatedtopayyourinvoice.

ThemanagementofCentralServiceseekyouradviceastotheviabilityofalegalactionagainst

Ericatoforcehertopaytheaccount.

Required: Indicate whether or not, and to what degree, if any, Central Service can succeed in its action against Erica. In your answer be sure to identify the countervailing public policies inissue.

(ii)

After being served with the legal action, Erica concocts plan B. She delivers a cheque to Central Service for $1,000.00 with the notation "in full payment of my indebtedness".Central Service cashes the cheque but proceeds with the legal action to collect the balance. Erica claimsthat they cannot continue the action since they cashed thecheque.

Required:Who is right?Explain with reference to the applicable legalprinciples.

(iii)Central Service advises Brad that they are deducting $2,000.00 from his pay (the amount that Erica has refused to pay) since Brad is in contravention of Section 11(2) of the Act since he is working as amechanic.

Required: Would Brad be successful in an action against Central Service for the withheld wages or could they successfully defend the Action?Explain.