Question 1

Before purchasing these ovens he sold his 2 current ovens to two different buyers. Both paid for the

ovens by cheque, but the first cheque hadtwo lines across it and the words "not negotiable." Joseph is

worried that this cheque is not valid. The second cheque was originally written to a party other than Joseph

and was not endorsed. However, the word "bearer cheque" appears on the front of the cheque. Joseph is

unfamiliar with these instruments and is worried that he has been provided with fraudulent cheques. He asks

you for advice on the interpretation of these two instruments and for your opinion as to their validity.

Question 2

Joseph has hired a cleaning crew to clean his work premises on a nightly basis. He pays them on a

weekly basis and tells them exactly how to clean the premises. The crew uses their own tools to conduct their

cleaning services. He sometimes even watches them clean the premises and oversees every aspect of it. The

cleaning crew operates as sole traders, but due to the frequency of their work with Joseph, they have him as

their sole client at the moment. Joseph believes that they are merely contracted labour, but had heard that

certain freelancers have sued clients for rights as full employees. Joseph would like you to advise him on what

type of employment he has truly undertaken with his cleaners, and what consequences may come from this

determination of employment.

What is the appropriate law(s) and/or rule(s) that apply to the situation?

Can you help me Identify and explain the appropriate elements or frameworks accompanying such laws and rules?

How can I apply the rules and facts of the case as presented?