Instructions

Complete BOTH mini cases provided to you.

Your assignment must be analysed and written using IRAC Method.

Information found and used from website, magazines, journals, books or text book etc. must be properly reference in the body of your assignment and in your reference list or bibliography

Mini Case #1

Eshleman v. General Accident Insurance Brokers Inc. 2012 William Eshleman worked through his incorporated company Eshleman Agencies Ltd. and then sold his shares in that company to General Accident Insurance Brokers (GAIB) Inc. He continued to work for them and as a term of his employment contract agreed, upon leaving, not to work in the same industry for a period of three years "within the metropolitan City of Edmonton." In 2000, Mr. Eshleman left GAIB Inc. and went to work for an insurance company in Rosemond, Alberta, a city immediately to the south and adjacent to the City of Edmonton. GAIB sued William Eshleman claiming a breach of the restrictive covenant.

A. Explain what arguments are available to Mr. Eshleman to escape this restrictive covenant.

B. Explain the likely outcome. In your answer consider whether this was an employment or a business relationship, and what difference that would make to the decision.

Mini Case #2

Bento Flex Ltd. v. Jones [2004] Marvin A. Jones was the operator of an ice-resurfacing machine and was filling it with water when an explosion injured him. The water tank and the gasoline tank were similar and located in close proximity and he made the mistake of filling the gasoline tank with water from a hose. When the water filled the tank, the gasoline escaped and an overhead heater ignited the resulting fumes. He sued the manufacturer and distributor of the machine for negligence.

A. Explain the arguments available on both sides and the likely outcome including the calculation of damages, if appropriate. Would it make any difference to your answer to know that Jones testified that the two tanks did not confuse him?