Problem 1 (25 marks)

Mia wished to purchase an automobile. She saw a 2016 Mustang Convertible advertised for sale in the local newspaper. Mia talked to the owner, Erica, and advised her that she didn't know much about cars but needed a reliable, comfortable car for long-distance travel. Erica confirmed that she found her car comfortable (and fun) and that it was probably what Mia needed. Mia then examined the car and agreed to purchase it from Erica for $25,000.00. They both signed a short contract which contained a clause stating that the car was sold "as is and with no warranties whatsoever except as expressly set out herein". The agreement did provide that Erica would be responsible for obtaining a mechanical safety certificate before delivering the vehicle to Mia.

Assume The Sale of Goods Act is applicable.

(i) Erica did obtain the certificate and notified Mia that the car was ready. However, prior to Mia picking up the vehicle, it was mysteriously damaged. Who is responsible to fix the damages between Erica and Mia?

(ii) If Mia found that the car was uncomfortable and not suitable for long-distance highway travel, what action if any could she bring against Erica and what would be the likely outcome?

(iii) If, the day after Mia purchased the car, the transmission failed and the engine seized up, what action could Mia take against Erica? What remedies could she claim and what defenses would Erica likely raise? Explain.

(iv) Two weeks after purchase the car was repossessed by the St. Catharines Savings Bank. The Bank discloses that it had registered a Chattel Mortgage against the car for an outstanding loan of $20,000.00. What remedies would be available to Mia? Give the legal basis for your answer.

Be certain to include the applicable principles as part of your answers.

Problem 2 (25 marks)

Caroline, a 60-year-old grandmother had been a legal secretary with the largest law firm in St. Catharines for 40 years. As a result of her competence, hard work and sunny disposition she had earned the position of executive assistant to one of the firm's senior partners. Caroline was paid an annual salary of $50,000.00. On December 22nd last year, after a pleasant exchange of "good mornings" Caroline's boss requested that she get him a cup of coffee and bring coffee to the clients in the boardroom. "Not likely" said Caroline, "It's not in my job description". 2 Caroline was immediately fired. She was escorted out of the office by the security guard and left on the street. Her request to use a telephone to call a taxi was rejected.

Caroline commenced an action for unjust dismissal. In addition, she has requested $100,000.00 in damages for the humiliation which she suffered. At the trial one of the other legal assistants testified that Caroline had taken home office supplies which she had given to her grandchildren to complete their school work. As well, she had typed and photocopied their assignments during working hours. Finally, it was claimed that Caroline would regularly leave early or go home sick when her boss was out of the office. Caroline acknowledged that this was all true, although she stated that she had left early on a "few" occasions and not "regularly".

She also testified that she had been unable to obtain similar employment (although a friend had offered her a retail clerking job at $35,000.00 per year).

Required: Provide the judgment which would be rendered in this case with particular reference to the positions advanced by each of the parties. If Caroline is successful, what damages would she receive? Be certain to include an explanation of the applicable legal principles in your answer.

Problem 3 (25 marks)

Mickey's Restaurants Ltd. is a large firm that operates a chain of 25 roadhouse-style restaurant/taverns across Canada under the name of "Mickey's" and is well known nationally due to its extensive advertising campaigns.

Mickey ("Mick") Dubb recently bought a restaurant/tavern, in downtown St. Catharines. He formed a company under the name "Mickey Dee's Ltd." and renamed the restaurant "Mickey Dee's". The signature item on the menu was a large hamburger with 2 patties name the "Mickdubble". The dcor and furnishings of Mick's restaurant are not at all like those of Mickey's chain, but the external appearance, franchise colors, and sign bear some similarities. Mickey plans to franchise the business in Ontario.

The president of Mickey's Restaurants Ltd. is angry because she has been planning to open a franchise store in St. Catharines. She alleges that Mick is attempting to deceive the public, is trading on her company's reputation, and is benefitting from its advertising. She has written to Mick, insisting that he change the name of his company and his restaurant and the name of the signature burger since Mickey's Restaurants Ltd. sells its signature burger under the name "McDouble".

Mick maintains that no one is confused, that he chose the name "Mickey Dee's" deliberately to distinguish his restaurants from those of the chain, and that, since the principal owners of Mickey's Restaurants Ltd. are not named Mickey, they are the ones who are trading improperly.

Mick comes to you for advice. He also asks if he can patent his grandmother's recipe for fried chicken (which includes 13 secret herbs and spices) and her recipe for pasta sauce. He intends to sell both from his restaurant.

3 Required: Advise Mickey what legal actions might be taken against him and whether or not they might succeed and the likelihood of obtaining the patents.

Problem 4 (25 marks)

Peter and Paul formed a delivery business on May 1st known as P & P Delivery and filed a partnership registration. It was agreed that initially the business would use Peter's car and, as business expanded, Paul's car could also be used. The business operated from a small office in Peter's home. Both parties took a salary based upon the number of hours that they worked at $15.00/hour and it was agreed that any additional monies, after expenses would be divided on the same basis.

Both parties worked in the business for six (6) months. However, Paul refused to make his car available and, as a result, Peter was required to rent an additional car at a cost of $400.00 per month to accommodate the additional employee that was hired. As well, although Peter and Paul had originally worked the same hours, Peter found that he was now working twice as many hours as Paul. Paul, it was discovered, had signed with Uber as a driver and found it more lucrative to drive for Uber than to deliver parcels at the rate charged by P & P Delivery. He had made $30,000.00 from Uber during the 6 month period.

On November 1st, Peter advised Paul that his services were no longer required and that there was no partnership since Paul did not provide his car. Paul sued for a declaration that he was a partner and that he was entitled to 50% of the business. Peter counterclaims, claiming that he was entitled to 50% of the money earned by Paul driving for Uber. Paul then advises that all of his Uber earnings were earned by his corporation, Paul's Speedy Delivery Ltd., and that Peter has no right to proceed against the Corporation.

Required: What will be the result of the law suit? Be certain to refer to and explain the applicable legal principles as part of your answer.