Assignment:
This assessment has two parts. First, read the following scenario and write 2-3 pages answering the questions and analyzing the legal issues. In your analysis, you should answer all of the questions asked and thoroughly discuss how the law would apply to the given facts. If something is ambiguous, explain why it’s ambiguous and discuss the outcome of each possible alternative.
Second, I want you to think of a time in your life (preferably in your professional career) when you entered into a contract that didn’t turn out the way you expected it to. Write 2-3 pages detailing the agreement and what went wrong. Was there a failure of one of the required elements of a valid contract? Were there any third-parties involved? How were the parties eventually discharged from the agreement? Was there a breach? If so, what resulted from the breach? Be sure to make reference to topics discussed in the various lessons on contracts throughout this course.
Scenario:
Pied Piper is a startup software company in California. Richard Hendricks is Pied Piper’s CEO, and is an agent of the corporation. One day, Richard and his friend, Erlich Bachman, who is not an agent of Pied Piper, are at a restaurant where they meet Duncan, the CEO of Sliceline, a pizza delivery app. Hendricks jokingly introduces Bachman as Pied Piper’s chief operating officer. Duncan doesn’t realize that Hendricks was joking, and while Hendricks is in the restroom, Bachman and Duncan make a deal for Pied Piper to acquire Sliceline and all of its employees.
Hendricks is very unhappy that Erlich would do this, but then he realizes that Pied Piper really does need to hire some new software developers, so he decides to honor Erlich’s agreement for Pied Piper to buy Sliceline.
Once the Sliceline employees have become Pied Piper employees, some of them become disgruntled with their working conditions. Hendricks pushes the programmers hard. They consistently work 80-hour weeks and he tells them they shouldn’t complain because he pays them all an annual salary of $150,000. They’re also a little creeped out because he obviously monitors their Pied Piper email accounts, as he will sometimes mention things in meetings that he could only know by reading their private emails.
The disgruntled employees decide to band together and form a union. The employees begin to negotiate the terms of a collective bargaining agreement with Hendricks, but he isn’t giving them what they want. To protest, the employees all agree to strike between the hours of 10am and 2pm every workday. In response, Hendricks fires all of the striking employees.
Questions:
1. Is the agreement for Pied Piper to acquire Sliceline enforceable? Why or why not?
2. Is Pied Piper violating any of its employees’ legal rights? Why or why not?
3. Do the fired employees have a claim against Pied Piper for wrongful termination? Why or why not?
Rubric (for part one):
This rubric is a set of criteria used to assess your submission.
The following 2 criteria will be applied:
1. Issue spotting – how well are you able to identify the legal issues presented by the scenario?
a. Exemplary: You have spotted all of the legal issues raised by the scenario and possibly even some in addition to what was intended by the instructor
b. Commendable: You have successfully identified all of the most important legal issues, but possibly missed one or two minor points.
c. Sufficient: You have discussed most of the most important legal issues arising in the case but have missed at least one significant issue.
d. Minimal: You have noted some of the important legal issues but have neglected to discuss a majority of the crucial points.
e. Insufficient: You have failed to identify any of the important legal issues presented in the scenario.
2. Application of relevant law – once you have spotted a legal issue in the scenario, how well are you able to apply the law to the facts and reach the correct conclusion?
a. Exemplary: For each legal issue you discuss, you correctly determine how the law applies to the issue. Additionally, you consider alternative facts or outcomes, and identify how the law would handle various interpretations of ambiguous facts or terms.
b. Commendable: For each legal issue you identify, you correctly state the applicable law and conclusion, but do not consider alternative outcomes or ambiguous facts/terms.
c. Sufficient: For most legal issues you raise, you correctly apply the law to the facts, but one or more conclusions is inaccurate and there is no discussion of alternatives.
d. Minimal: For most legal issues you identify, you incorrectly apply the law to the facts and reach a conclusion that is not in line with applicable law. Further, there is no discussion of alternatives.
e. Insufficient: You fail to correctly apply the law to any of the legal issues you discuss, and consistently reach the wrong conclusions.
Rubric (for part two):
For this part, I am basically looking for a good-faith effort to analyze a real-world contractual situation from your life through the lens of the material we have learned in this course. Your submission will generally be evaluated as follows:
a. Exemplary: A truly thoughtful reflection on a past experience. You have taken the legal concepts discussed in this class and applied them to a failed agreement in your life (preferably your professional career) and made a good-faith effort to understand the situation through the lens of contract law.
b. Minimal: You adequately describe a contract that didn’t turn out the way you expected it to and mention a class concept or two. However, there is very little thoughtful reflection about the situation and the legal consequences of each party’s actions.
c. Insufficient: You describe a contractual situation from your past experience, but do not apply any legal concept to the facts or reflect upon each party’s actions in light of contract law.
