Running head BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT Business Law

Running head BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT Business Law

Running head: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT











Business Law Assignment

Name of the Student

Name of the University

Author Note



Probable Outcome of the Case

The main factors of negligent misrepresentation are reliance and injury, which is prevalent in this case (Feinman, 2015). Peter had relied on the represented facts made by Oshawa about the long duration of the project and hence made changes in his lifestyle based on the new job. Changing Provinces and buying a new house involves a lot of monetary investment, which went in vain for Peter when he was transferred to the accounting department for doing the typical accounting work for which he left his old job.

In With v O’Flanagan, it was held that a party to a contract must intimate the other party if there are some material changes in the circumstances that may alter the course of business. In the given case study, Peter must have been intimated earlier, before making him sign the contract, about the exhaustion of the project. A remedy for misrepresentation includes Rescission of the contract.

Lesson Learnt

It is a lesson for all professionals to check the contract of employment with their company and make the company revise the clauses as per their convenience. Otherwise, an organization may operate as per their policy and in such adverse situations; the employee will not be eligible to any remedy.





Conclusion

Peter has the liberty to sue Oshawa on grounds of negligent misrepresentation and opt for damagesfor the loss incurred by him. While, he may also opt for rescission of the contract and ask the court to restore him to his previous set up. However, Peter cannot sue the company if his contract of employment includes the provision of transfer of an employee to any other department within the company.



Reference:



Feinman, J. (2015). Negligent Misstatement in the United States.

With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch 575