Business Law: Mini-Case Analysis 1. Agency and Employer-Employee Relations

MINI CASE ANALYSIS: 2 written analyses of given cases/hypothetical case scenarios are required. The analyses will include identifying relevant legal issue(s), analyzing and applying relevant legal concepts, describing legal outcome(s), and providing legal rationale for conclusions. See attachment... Mini_Case_Analysis_1.doc Mini-Case Analysis 1 Agency and Employer-Employee Relations Professor Dinnatia Doster Greene Fall Semester 2010 Instruction You may use a computer to type your exam answers and submit your answers in your Assignment Folder. INSTRUCTIONS l. I am looking primarily for your ability to spot the issues and to state clearly and completely the appropriate criteria or rules for treating these issues. 2. In the interest of getting your assignments graded rapidly, I will not attempt to write extensive remarks on each student's assignment. I will, however, post a Sample Answer in the Conference Section. ________________________________________ Question I Ligo, Hess, Hanna and Weir first met while in Vietnam as American soldiers fighting the Vietcong. When the war there ended for the US, Hanna and Hess returned to civilian life and decided to go into business together selling automobiles. They settled in Rockville, Maryland and opened their first show room in 1975 selling Chrysler and Plymouth products. Because of requirements placed on its dealers by the Chrysler Corporation, the two incorporated their business. Four years later, Weir, a career soldier, retired from the army and "joined" his old friends Hanna and Hess working at the dealership. The late 1970's were difficult years for the automobile business due to a number of factors including shortages of petroleum products of all types and heavy inflation in the U.S. domestic cost of living. As lines began to form at gasoline stations in 1979, sales of cars at the dealership dropped. In those days, no one was able to offer zero interest financing to attract buyers. Other ways to keep the dealership afloat financially had to be found. A few months after Weir came to work at the dealership, Hess, Hanna and Weir decided to broaden the base of their business by establishing a used car sales operation in Gaithersburg, the then rapidly developing suburb just north of Rockville in Montgomery County, Maryland. Weir was placed in charge of this new operation and told to make it profitable. His pay was tied to profits. Weir soon learned that the "business" would do much better if it further broadened the products it sold. First he added a small convenience store which featured a deli and a line of sundries. This was physically located immediately adjacent to the automobile salesroom. This convenience store attracted many customers and provided a good level of profit for the business. Weir wanted more. Soon Weir began selling recreational pharmaceuticals (that is illegal drugs) to a few of his "regular" customers. Profits soared and Hess, Hanna and Weir all prospered. One day about a year ago, Ligo, now himself retired from a 30 year army career and working as a Montgomery County detective, dropped into the convenience store to purchase a sandwich. While talking with his old buddy Weir, Ligo noticed the aroma of burning marijuana. He looked around for the source of the odor, located the person smoking the marijuana and arrested the smoker. Soon the whole story about the sale of illegal products at the convenience store emerged. Weir was arrested and later convicted of the crimes involved. Now the State of Maryland seeks to seize the entire business [the new car dealership, the used car operation including the convenience store and its stock] on the grounds that the business constituted a front for an illegal drug sales operation. You work for the State Attorney's office and have been assigned this case. Your task is to prepare a case under a statute that allows for the seizure of property used for illegal purposes. The statute involved provides for seizure of property only if one or more of its owners actively participates in the illegal operation or if knowing about it, can somehow be tied to it as a principal using traditional Common Law agency rules. What facts will be needed to support the seizure? Why? Explain fully. ________________________________________ Question II September 11, 2001 was a day Americans will long remember. It was the day two commercial airliners were deliberately crashed into the twin 110 story World Trade Center towers in downtown New York City. Although fiction, assume that the following happened. John Jones was an employee of the XYZ security company, a Limited Liability Company whose members included Claudio Davis, Steve Brown, Sherry Armstrong and Darla Cook. Jones had been hired to screen passengers who were entering the secured boarding area in the Boston Airport so as to be able to board their flights. Jones had received training in his job shortly after being hired. This training was incompetently conducted by Matthew Barr who, in turn, worked for the American Training Academy, Inc. which was solely owned by Davis and Brown who also served respectively as its managers. Although instructed to check everyone seeking to enter the secured airport area, Jones was often rushed in his work due to a combination of too many passengers coming through the security checkpoint and too few XYZ employees to really keep up with them. The problem, as his boss had often told him, was to manage the checking process in such a manner so as not to create a very long backup. This, it was thought, might cause passengers to complain to the airport authority management and possibly persuade the authority to revoke the contract under which XYZ was hired to provide the screening. During his training, Jones had been told to look for guns and to stop anyone who appeared to be attempting to bring one or any other kind of potential weapon onto an airplane. The morning of September 11 followed a long night during which Jones had worked at the security checkpoint. His supervisor, designed by XYZ as the "watch commander," had ordered Jones to remain on duty that morning because his replacement, Cathy Hagar, had not shown up for work. You can guess what happened. Four men came through the checkpoint at which Jones was working, were not stopped even though each was carrying a type of knife used to open packages, boarded a flight bound for California, and highjacked it before crashing the plane into one of the towers. Now you represent the survivors of a group of passengers. They ask about possible suits for wrongful death, etc. of their respective "loved ones." What will you tell them? Why? Explain fully. Assume that all relevant jurisdictions here have wrongful death statues that allow for suits in tort against wrongdoers including their principals, if any, and that all jurisdictions also employ the traditional Common Law of Agency principles.