Write on one of the topics below and submit an electronic copy (in pdf or Word format) of your essay via Canvas on the due date by midnight. Do not delay as your preparation will require a certain time commitment.To say something of merit in that short of space requires some planning and precise thinking.Do not give me your first draft!

Each topic deals with an issue relating to business law.In your submission, please identify which option you have chosen. To 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. A grading rubric has been provided on Canvas to assist you in understanding what is expected on this essay assignment.

Option #1

Retired Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci urged caution about reforming court structures when he stated, "We must not take what we have for granted, and we must be particularly vigilant so that in our quest for improvement, we don't desert the values and procedures that have brought us to this level of excellence". Do you agree with his premise? Please discuss the current Canadian Court Structure system and new developments to further enhance the court system. Please state if you believe that the developments to the court structure system are positive or negative. If positive, what more could be done to further enhance the court structure system? If negative, how can we improve our court structure system while maintaining the system's current integrity?

Option #2

On January 6, 2021, Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building to protest the results of the US election (https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/06/dc-protests-trump-rally-live-updates/). The US Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to assembly and petition. Similarly, the Canadian Constitution gives its citizens the freedom of peaceful assembly. US Senator Mitch McConnell accused the protesters of "trying to disrupt our democracy" by trying to delay the certification of the election. Should the protests of these individuals be viewed as a disruption of democracy or are they not also acting within their democratic rights? At what point does someone cross the line between "assembly and petition" and "peaceful assembly" and into the realm of insurrection, to which many people labelled the protesters. Please discuss your opinion on the right to protest and peaceful assembly and how the rights of the protesters were both being exercised, and perhaps taken too far.

Option #3

On December 8, 2020, the Government of Alberta announced updated public restrictions on residents of Alberta effective December 13, 2020 under the CMOH Order #42-2020 (https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/4cccb47f-c26a-40bf-b95e-caaf04892164/resource/3a7a124f-1d12-485b-b7b1-09bddf61f29e/download/health-cmoh-record-of-decision-cmoh-order-42-2020.pdf). The restrictions include mandatory facemask wearing, social distancing, prohibited social gathering and non-essential travel. The updated restrictions are intended to assist the province in the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic by reducing the spread of infections between individuals. Those restrictions have continued in place into 2021, and according to the order, will remain in place "until rescinded by the Chief Medical Officer of Health. Under section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, governments have the authority to interfere with citizens rights so long as the interference can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Many people have found the government restrictions an abuse of authority and without justification. Do you agree? Do you believe that the government should have the right to interfere with individual rights? How would you limit the governments ability to interfere with its citizens rights? Are there some rights that should never be interfered with?

Option #4

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?

Option #5

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)?