In September, Knowles, the owner of a professional hockey club, began negotiatio

Question

In September, Knowles, the owner of a professional hockey club, began negotiations with Meyer, a professional hockey player, for Meyer’s services for the following two years. The two agreed orally to a salary of #3000 a week for Meyer during the training and playing seasons. At the time, Meyer asked whether platers would be covered by workers’ compensation insurance if injured. Knowles replied that the club’s lawyer has advised that players were not covered, but that in any event he was having written contracts drawn up by the lawyer in which a clause would provide that every paler would be insured against injury and that if a player were disabled he would be looked after. Written contracts were then prepared and presented to all the players (including Meyer) for signing. The contracts in their written form stated the agreed salary for each individual player, and outlined the usual conditions regarding the player’s obligations to the club, but there was no reference to insurance protection against injury or to the employer’s obligation in the event of a player being disabled. Meyer played for the team for 6 weeks and then received a serious eye injury to his eye during a hockey game. He was immediately taken to the hospital. At the end of the game, Knowles announced to Meyer’s teammates in the dressing room that he would pay Meyer’s salary to the end of the season. Knowles paid Meyer’s salary to the date of his injury and refused to pay any additional sum. Meyer brought an action for damages claiming $5000 representing his salary for the remaining 15 weeks of the season; $500 for the cost of the artificial eye and general damages as compensation for the loss of his eye. According to the Canadian law and legal legislations , Answer the following questions, Q1. What are the legal issues involved in this case? Q2. What arguments would each side make in this case? Cite any relevant cases. Q3. What do you believe the courts would decide? Explain your answer. Q4. What are some lessons business professionals can learn from this case?

Explanation / Answer

Q1. The key issue behind this case is the break of trust. Note that I am not calling it a rupture of agreement, which would have made it a solid contender for a case victor at the court. Meyer was told verbatim by the group proprietor that he would be dealt with and protected in case of the damage. Nonetheless, Meyer was not offered what was guaranteed. From Meyer's point of view, it is a rupture of trust, yet take note of that there was no narrative confirmation here.

From Knowles' point of view, while he would know inside that he has wronged Meyer, he has shrewdly maintained a strategic distance from any paper trail which would have committed him to repay Meyer in case of damage. Subsequently, he is sensibly sheltered from a legitimate point of view.

Q2. Meyer's contention would be exclusively in light of the verbal exchange that Knowles had with him amid the player transaction - that Meyer was guaranteed he would be protected for damage and would be dealt with in case of any incapacity. He would most likely likewise get in a couple of his partners to affirm what Knowles has said in the group meeting about paying Meyer his compensation till the finish of the season.

Knowles' contention would be basic - Please read the agreement. There was no specifying of any restorative protection or for any remuneration/caring for if the player was guaranteed. This was likewise marked and acknowledged by Meyer. Subsequently, Knowles isn't committed to pay Meyer or take care of him now. He just needed to pay him his pay for his diversion time, which he did. He can additionally even say that because of this damage, he has missed the mark concerning players which is influencing his group's execution.

Q3. While the court would in a perfect world know who has wronged, courts normally run just with hard confirmation. For this situation, Meyer does not have any narrative proof as an agreement. Knowles has confirmation to demonstrate his case. Thus, it is particularly likely that the court would support Knowles.

Q4. One key learning for business experts is that while trust is something worth being thankful for, dependably have everything archived. Not reporting key activities/focuses in any business movement can prompt genuine repercussions later on, and can likewise prompt false arguments being created against you. This can likewise prompt break of trusts effectively - you may convey what was guaranteed by you, yet the other party probably won't wind up conveying what was guaranteed, all since it was never archived. Henceforth, dependably report everything in any business action. This is the key learning.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.