New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Test 4 Cases from Chapters 14 and 15

by: Grace Stewart

Test 4 Cases from Chapters 14 and 15 Law 3220

Marketplace > Clemson University > Law 3220 > Test 4 Cases from Chapters 14 and 15
Grace Stewart

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

This is a list of the cases that we needed to know for the second test!
Legal Environment of Business
K. Toussaint
Study Guide
50 ?




Popular in Legal Environment of Business

Popular in Department

This 6 page Study Guide was uploaded by Grace Stewart on Sunday March 20, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to Law 3220 at Clemson University taught by K. Toussaint in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 30 views.


Reviews for Test 4 Cases from Chapters 14 and 15


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 03/20/16
Exam: chapter 14 and 15, know cases! Chapter 14 cases Cove Management v. Aflac, Inc. ­ Galgano signed an  “Associates Agreement” with AFLAC in 2004 ­ Agreement stated Galgano was an independent contractor ­ WITHOUT authority to bind ALFAC for his  “debts, faults or actions.” ­ Also stated Galgano may not enter into contracts or incur debt on behalf of AFLAC Galgano did not have authority to  ­ “rent any office space” without written authorization ­ 2009: Galgano leased office space from Cove Management  ­ Tenant was AFLAC and Guarantor was Galgano ­ Galgano signed as lessee and guarantor. Later he defaulted on his payment ­ Cove sued AFLAC for losses  ­ Cove noted that office was clearly listed as an AFLAC office and engaged in business for  AFLAC ­ District court dismissed the suit; cove appealed ­ Determination of Galgano ’s authority will define him as either independent contractor or an  agent of AFLAC. Authority may be either actual or apparent ­ Cove argued that AFLAC clothed Galgano with apparent authority ­ Apparent authority defined:  “such authority as the principal knowingly permits the agent to  assume… or holds his agent out as possessing…” The other party has “reasonably and  detrimentally relied on agent’s authority.” ­ Most evidence came into existence AFTER signing of the lease  ­ Cove did not make any effort to determine if Galgano was independent contractor or agent of  AFLAC. Cove relied on statement and representations of Galgano that he had authority to  bind AFLAC to the lease on premises.  ­ HELD: AFFIRMED  ­ Galgano was not acting under apparent authority. Bearden v. Wardley Corporation  Bearden listed some rental property with Gritton (a real estate agent) who worked for Wardley ­ ­ Gritton told Bearden he wanted to buy the property for $89,000 and Bearden agreed  ­ contract called for Gritton to pay Bearden $400 a month followed by a balloon payment after  5 years ­ Unknown to Bearden, Gritton gave warranty deed with other documents for bearded to sign  and she signed he had signature impropery notarized ­ ­ recorded the deed and title was transferred to Gritton  ­ Gritton doesn ’t keep up on payments ­ Bearden ’s lawyer discovers Gritton’s fraud  ­ Sued Gritton and wardley for breach of contract, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty ­ Jury awarded damages and punitive damages against Gritton and Wardley ­ Wardley Appealed ­ HELD: AFFIRMED  ­ wardley breached its duty of care to Bearden and is liable Yim v. J’s fashion Accessories, Inc.  ­ Yim did business under trade name Ho Tae ­ Ordered goods from J ’s fashion; invoices were sent to Ho Tae  ­ Account not paid. Fashion sued Yim. He denied liability, saying he acted as an agent for a  corporation­principal, Hosung Enterprise, Inc.  ­ Hosung did business under name Ho Tae ­ Fashion thought they were always dealing with Yim with trade name Ho Tae ­ Trial court entered summary judgement against Yim ­ He appealed, saying he was only an agent for Hosung Enterprises ­ HELD: AFFIRMED ­ Agent who makes a contract without giving identity of principal becomes personally liable  At no point did Yim indicate he was acting other than an individual doing business as Ho Tae ­ France v. Southern Equipment Co. ­ Hensley did business under trade name Royalty Builders ­ hired 16­year­old Robert France to do roofing work ­ Southern Equipment needed a new metal roof on a building. Accepted bid from Quality who  hired Royalty to work and Quality supplied materials ­ While working on roof, France fell and suffered head injuries ­ He sued Southern for exposing him to an inherently dangerous job of roofing ­ Court granted summary judgement for Southern France appealed. AFFIRMED.  ­ ­ Royalty Builders was an independent contractor. Southern had no control over the work done by Royalty Builders Southern Equipment could not be held vicariously liable as Royalty Builder ­ ’s (thereby  France’s) employer Guz v. Bechtel National ­ Guz worked for Bechtel (BNI) with a good employment record under employment at will  termination would be for unsatisfactory performance or due to a layoff  ­ ­ Budget for Guz ’s division was cut; he and others were terminated  ­ Guz applied for another job with the same company but was rejected  ­ He sued, breach of implied contract to be terminated only for good cause and breach of  implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing  ­ Trial court dismissed suit, saying he was an at­will employee ­ Appeals court reversed, holding that his longevity, raises, etc. warranted a retrial HELD: REVERSED in favor of BNI ­ ­ BNI had right to reorganize and terminate employees as they wished  Armstrong v. Food Lion, Inc.  Armstrong went to Food Lion with his mother, Tillie, to buy food. ­ ­ Three men in food lion uniforms approached Ronnie ­ They all started to attach ronnie and when his mom came to help ronnie, cam (a worker)  pushed her and knocked her down, she called for assistance ­ Armstrong sued Food Lion for numerous torts ­ Trial Court held for Food Lion; Appeals court affirmed. Armstrong appealed ­ HELD: AFFIRMED ­ Acts of the employees were for an independent purpose than service to their employer at the  store ­ Brown and Cameron were not furthering Food Lion ’s business in any manner when they  attacked Armstrong Chapter 15 cases Ballalatak v. All Iowa Agriculture Assn.  ­ Ballalatak worked as a security supervisor ­ 2 employees were injured in a work­related accident ­ called Ball and reported injury ­ Ball drove to the scene, helped get men to hospital and filled out accident report ­ The general manager told the workers that their medical care expenses would be taken care  of without filing for workers compensation  ­ Later, the workers told Ball that they were concerned that they would not receive workers ’ comp benefits Ball told the general manager, nowers, the workers had rights to benefits ­ ­ nowers fired him ­ ball sued, saying he was fired for asking re: workers ’ compensation duties to the injured  workers ­ Nowers claimed he fired him for insubordination ­ District court dismissed suit Ballalatak appealed  ­ ­ HELD: District court judgement AFFIRMED  ­ Ballalatak claims he was fired for raising concerns to his employer about workers ’ comp  rights  ­ Ball was fired for his attempt to ensure his employer did not violate statutory right of other  employees Ball loses ­ Zambelli Fireworks Manufacturing Co. v. Wood ­ Zambelli is one of the oldest and largest fireworks companies in the US ­ Wood hired by Zambelli in 2001 to work as pyrotechnical and choreographer to produce  fireworks displays with music On the job, Wood learned of technical trade secrets, client lists, pricing, costs and contract  ­ terms ­ Zambelli paid for Wood to become a certified trainer for the Pyrotechnic Guild International Noncompete agreement signed in 2005 stating things Wood wouldn't do if he left Zambelli ­ ­ Wood was hired by Pyrotechnico, a major competitor. Signed an agreement he would not  take or use any Zambelli info or trade secrets Pyro agree to pay his salary for 2 years if needed because of covenant with Zambelli and  ­ also would cover legal expenses ­ Wood resigned from Zambelli and went to Pyro ­ Zambelli sued to enforce covenant not to compete ­ District court held: Agreement was enforceable under Pennsylvania law; enjoined most  technical work by Wood  ­ Wood and Pyro appealed ­ HELD: district court decision AFFIRMED  Agreements are upheld when restrictions are reasonable to protect employer ­ ’s interests  Caterpillar Logistics Services, In. v. Solis ­ Caterpillar Logistics handles parts orders for caterpillar products Workers handle 650 parts per day; requires repetitive hand, wrist, elbow and shoulder  ­ movements ­ A month after MK began working she had elbow pain  Company MD put her on leave for 3 months. Same problem after she returned to work.  ­ Transferred to a position that required less movement­ took care of the problem ­ Company had a panel of 5 specialists and they concluded that the problem was prior to MK ’s  going to work, and not work­related  ­ Dept. of Labor disagreed. Assessed a $900 fine for failing to report work­related injury ­ Administrative Law Judge upheld penalty  OSHRC upheld decision, which became the final decision of the Secretary of Labor ­ ­ Caterpillar filed to review the order ­ Agency failed to consider what Caterpillar ’s actual experience was ­ Secretary ’s decision is vacated. Caterpillar Logistics wins.  Long v. Superior Senior Care, Inc.  ­ Long was an in­home certified nursing assistant (CNA) working for Superior Senior Care  ­ Clients would contact Superior; it would post requirements to match CNAs with clients ­ CNAs paid from escrow account  ­ Long was told her pay would be $10/hr  ­ Was assisting a client move from wheelchair to bed when client  “went limp”­ became dead  weight. Her back popped as she struggled to help client. In pain, received a back brace at  hospital, but eventually couldn't work ­ filed for workers comp. Superior said she was independent contractor, not employee ­ Administrative Law Judge held long was an employee  ­ Commission reversed­ that she was an independent contractor­ not eligible for worker ’s  compensation  ­ Long appealed  Here, Long was acting as an independent contractor ­ ­ HELD: AFFIRMED  Callison v. City of Philadelphia Callison worked for city; diagnosed with anxiety caused by stress ­ ­ Used a lot of sick leave; was placed on sick abuse list  ­ Sick leave investigator calls homes to see if employees are there Callison took 3 months FMLA leave ­ ­ City checked on him. often not home ­ suspended for failure to follow policy  Callison sued, saying he was not subject to discipline while on FMLA leave ­ ­ Said discipline by the city was retaliatory ­ Trial court held for City ­ Callison appealed ­ HELD: AFFIRMED. City did not engage in prohibited acts by their policies. ­ There is no right in the FMLA that employee is  “left alone” when under the Act ­ Internal call­in policy does not diminish protections of the FMLA. Teamsters Local Union No. 523 v. NLRB ­ Interstate brands makes/distributes bakery products ­ Different distribution system handled different products  ­ Employer consolidated distribution­ sales distributors and reps would handle all product lines. Meant union would not represent all distribution workers, rather than only some workers ­ Rammage had been a Dolly Madison sales rep for 15 years before consolidation (was not  represented by union) ­ he became part of the union but was at the bottom of seniority list  ­ result: rammage was  “entailed” to bottom of distribution system  ­ Lost his regular route; was demoted ­ He complained to NLRB that union and employer were engaged in  “unfair labor practice” ­ Board held in Rammage ’s favor. Union appealed. ­ HELD: AFFIRMED  ­ When there is a unit merger, union and employer are not permuted to  “dovetail the seniority  of employees while entailing” previously unrepresented employees” ­ The fact that Rammage was entailed plus demoted (because he was not in the union)  suggests union caused employer to discriminated against him ­ Rammage WINS!


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

50 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.