Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Ashleigh N. Renfro February 1, 2013 Reflections on Chapter Twelve Page 335: Questions 1(a)-(d); 2 1a.

) Legal Analysis The Sauls, despite ceasing operations of their internet business, are liable to the Burtons for failing to comply with the covenant not-to-compete because their business directly resulted in profit loss to the Burtons. Additionally, the Burtons possibly have a cause of action based on fraud, but only if the Sauls intentionally defrauded the Burtons. In order to enforce an action for a covenant not-to-compete, there must be: (1) a valid contract in place; (2) plaintiff compliance with the contract; (3) defendant breach of their end of the contract, and; (4) damages as a result of the breach. In order to prove a fraud action, there must be (1) a false material misrepresentation; (2) of which the defendant knew to be false; (3) intent on defendants part to commit fraud, and; (5) damage. Here, assuming an agreement was signed by both parties and the details of such agreement were specific, there was a validly formed contract. Upon paying the $5,000 own payment and signing the promissory note, the Burtons legitimized the beginning of such an agreement. Next, the Burtons complied with their end of the deal. They consistently paid what they owed to the Sauls like clockwork. Next, the Sauls did not hold up their end of the deal. They agreed not to compete, and according to the facts, their internet business was suspiciously similar to the Burtons, therefore, they are competing--a direct violation of the agreement. Lastly, the Burtons suffered (most likely) lost profits from the Sauls Similarly, without enough facts, we can not know whether the Sauls began their internet business with the intent to commit fraud. In other words, we do not know whether they lied to the Burtons at the closing of the deal or not. They might have misread the contract. The Sauls breached the valid contract entered into with the Burtons, whom fully performed their end of the bargain. Because of this, the Burtons may collect damages for the breach. However, the Sauls likely did not intentionally breach the covenant, therefore, there is likely no cause of action for fraud. 1b.) Analysis under Conflict Theory Principles Conflict theory, as made popular by Karl Marx, focuses on one classs domination and power over the other. Similarly, the exchange theory deals with cooperation between parties because they think they will be rewarded for it. And lastly, social constructivism deals with the influences each party has on the other.

In this situation, I do not believe the Sauls were attempting to exert power over the Burtons. In fact, I believe the covenant in and of itself, while standard practice, led to the Burtons exerting power over the Sauls. Though industry standard, one can say that a covenant not to compete after two years is the hallmark of domination. Those in the situations like the Burtons, however, will contend that they are doing what is best for their business. In real terms though, they were taking advantage of their resources--(1) their agreement, and (2) their ability to bring further action even after the Sauls halted their operation. Even more pessimistically, Saul is of Hebrew origin and Burton is of English origin. They may have played a role in the Burtons persistent action against the Sauls. Along those same line, the Sauls attempted to take back their wrongdoings. They were under the impression that if they stopped what they were doing, all would be well again. This exchange theory also helped the Burtons gain their form of power. By paying their agreed upon monies, they bargained for a business without the worry of competition. Lastly, under the social constructivist theory, the Burtons were completely influenced by the Sauls perceived threat. On the other hand, the Sauls felt immense fear and ceased the operation its entirety when they conflict arose. 1c.) How do the two analyses differ? Like the chapter explains, legal theory provides black and white explanation, justification, and direction for which way the dispute will be handled. The book notes that the approach removes itself from the dispute all together. Conversely, the conflict theory focuses on various interactions with the parties and explains why the actions arose. (Peacemaking, P. 335.) 1d.) Insights That the Conflict Theory Adds to Legal Theory By taking a deeper look at social interactions, the conflict theory can help answer many of the elemental issues involved in legal theory. For example, on the fraud action, one of the elements is intent to defraud. By looking at the interactions first by using the conflict theory, we can get far on seeing if a party meets this element. Perhaps the Sauls started their new business with the intent of getting back at the successful Burtons. This can go a long way if used in legal practice. 2.) Mediation between a master and a slave The issues involved in this situation are the masters needs, whatever they may be, for property, family, or self maintenance by a third party. Additionally, the masters need to feel domineering over the slave. Conversely, the slaves needs are freedom and self-preservation in a hostile situation. Taking a conflict theory approach, I would begin by first identifying that there is an obvious domination issue involved. Whether that be brought on by the political currents of the time or by the owners own upbringing. Perhaps his parents owned a slave and he wished to keep his status above that of the slave like his parents did. I would privately ask the owner what he perceives the outcome would be, or how other would view him if he did not own a slave. Maybe convincing him that he is no less powerful of a man for not owning a slave would help. Conversely, the slave

feels the need to exchange his work for the idea that he is doing right, as he is supposed to do. This would be a perfect opportunity, instead of trying to get the owner to release the slave alltogether, but to try and persuade the owner into paying the slave a minimal, yet fair wage. At the same time, the slave gets to obtain his deserved freedom, all the while still exchange his work for something better in return.