EMPL 2302: Employment Law, Quiz 2
What is a requirement pursuant to the Statute of Frauds
1) That all contracts must be in writing
2) That certain contracts must be in writing
3) That all employment contracts must be in writing
4) That all temporary employment contracts must be in writing
What of the following is NOT a necessary element of a valid contract?
1) Offer
2) Deposit
3) Mental Capacity
4) Consideration
Lindsey is being hired as a manager of a bookkeeping company. She receives only an offer letter and is told by her employer that this is all she will be receiving. Is this offer letter sufficient?
1) No, she should receive a formal employment contract
2) Yes, an offer letter has all the necessary terms
3) No, reference to bonuses or stock options is required
4) Yes, as long as there is a job description in the offer letter
George is a legal assistant. He entered into an employment contract that lists his duties. One day, George's boss is not able to go out for lunch and tells George to get him lunch. This is not listed as part of George's job description and duties in his employment contract. Must George get his boss lunch?
1) No, since this is not part of the job description
2) Yes, since this is implied in the employment relationship
3) No, since lunch is an unpaid meal break
4) Yes, since this is a lawful and reasonable duty
Bob is a receptionist at John's courier company. Bob entered into an employment contract that states that his wage will be $10 per hour. Is this valid?
1) No, since the wage must match the statutory minimum
2) Yes, since parties can agree to any terms they want
3) No, since employment contracts are provided only to managers
4) Yes, since this is the minimum wage for a receptionist position pursuant to the ESA
What is the reasonable notice for a one-year fixed-term contract?
1) Twelve weeks
2) No notice required
3) Three weeks
4) Ten weeks
Carol's fixed term contract was renewed. It did not have a renewal date. Is the contract still valid?
1) Yes, as long as it says that the contract is renewable.
2) No, as it is now a contract for an indefinite term
3) Yes, as it is now a contract for an indefinite term
4) Yes, as renewable contracts do not require renewal dates
Frank was employed as a car salesperson. He had a contract of employment for a seven-year term. His employer terminated Frank after five years of his employment. Frank sued his employer for breach of contract. What legislation or area of law would govern his award for damages?
1) Breach of contract
2) Wrongful dismissal
3) Employment Standards Act
4) Employers and Employees Act
Claire entered into an employment contact. Her employer, John, was rushing to a meeting and did not go over the agreement or the termination clause with Claire. What should the employer have done?
1) Nothing as Claire could have asked her lawyer to review it
2) Brought the clause to Claire's attention and both had to sign off on it.
3) Witness Claire signing the contract
4) Nothing since Claire had already agreed to the contract verbally
What is the duty to mitigate?
1) Duty to be honest
2) Duty to reduce damages
3) Duty to get independent legal advice
4) Duty to provide notice
Jane did not include a probationary period clause in her standard employment contracts. She has dismissed Larry after two-and-a-half months since she is not satisfied with his performance. Larry is seeking notice. Jane is refusing since she says Larry was on probation. Will Jane have to pay Larry notice?
1) Yes, since the employment contract did not provide for a probationary period
2) No, since Larry has worked for less three months
3) Yes, since Larry was dismissed for poor job performance
4) No, since the probationary period is implied in the contract
Non-competition clauses are seen as a _________ by the courts?
1) Restraint of trade
2) Fiduciary duty
3) Positive covenant
4) Employee warranty
Who bears the onus to prove that the non-solicitation clause is reasonable?
1) The employee
2) The CEO
3) The employer
4) The CFO
How should a restrictive covenant be construed by the courts?
1) Broadly
2) Strictly
3) Ambiguously
4) Reasonably
Lex developed an application for monitoring people's homes. His employment contract has an ownership clause. Lex decided that he wants to open his own business and has provided the required notice to his employer that he will be leaving his job. Who owns the application which Lex developed?
1) The employer
2) Lex
3) Lex's new business
4) The patent office
If an employment contract does not have a choice of law clause, what laws would govern the interpretation of the contract?
1) Jurisdiction most closely connected to the employment relationship
2) Jurisdiction where the employer resides
3) Jurisdiction where the employee resides
4) Jurisdiction where the employer does most of its business
If a dispute arises whether previous verbal promises were binding on the parties, what type of clause would the courts look for?
1) An corporate policies clause
2) A choice of law clause
3) An inducement clause 4) An entire agreement clause
4) An entire agreement clause
Ellen was told by her employer to review the employment contract with her lawyer prior to signing. What clause in the employment contract would confirm Ellen's right to do so?
1) Severability Clause
2) Independent Representation Clause
3) Entire Agreement Clause
4) Independent Legal Advice Clause
Pursuant to the contra proferentem rule, ambiguous language in a contract may be interpreted against whom?
1) The party who signed the contract
2) The party who drafted the contract
3) The party who reviewed the contract
4) The party who advised about the contract
The common law established a four fold test to determine if a person is an independent contractor or an employee which of these is not part of the four fold test?
Control
Chance of profit/risk of loss
Ownership of tools
Total relationship between the parties
Right to strike
A person hired may want to be an employee to have the benefit of:
Independence
Tax write off's
Regular income
Potential for profits
Upon termination what right is given to both dependent contractors and employees?
The right to have vacation pay.
They have no rights in common.
The same rights as independent contractors have.
Reasonable notice.
In the Ilaris Corp. case Mr. Chorikov glued a floor down so sloppily that it had to be done again. Ilaris refused to pay him. The ESA prohibits this because Mr. Chorikov was
An employee
Not served the garnishment papers
An independent contractor
A dependent contractor
Which of these individuals has only a right for damages for breach of contract upon termination of a contract?
A dependent contractor
An independent contractor
An employee
According to the court in the Sagaz industries case what was the central question in deciding whether a person engaged to perform services is a contractor or an employee?
How many customers does the person have?
Does the person on his or her own tools?
Does the person set their own hours?
Does the person pay their own taxes?
Is he or she performing them as a person in business on his own account?
A warehouse worker negligently drops a valuable piece of merchandise being stored for a customer. The result was $10,000 damage to the property. How does the doctrine of vicarious liability apply to this situation?
The employer might have some liability but they can simply deduct the amount from the employees wages
The employer will probably have to pay because it is vicariously liable.
The employer has nothing to be concerned about because the worker is the vicariously liable
Vicarious liability does not apply in this situation.
Which of these is not a benefit for a person who maintains their status as an independent contractor?
Business write off‘s
Independence
Potential for profits
Tax benefits
Paid vacations
In the Braiden case Mr. Braiden’s employer, La-Z-Boy controlled the products sold; Mr. Braiden worked exclusively for La-Z-Boy;he owned his own tools and paid his expenses; Mr. Braiden’s position was crucial to the organization of his employer. Which of these characteristics argue that Mr. Braiden was an independent contractor?
Employers control of products sold
Crucial position
Exclusivity
Ownership of tools and paying expenses
According to the court in the Belton case what is the one test to distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor?
There is no one test to so distinguish.
Whether or not the person sets their own hours.
Whether or not they are a commissioned agent.
Whether or not the person has been hired for one specific task.
Parties intending to dismiss a probationary employee have a legal obligation
Carry out a good faith assessment of the employee's suitability for continued employment.
To offer additional training to a probationary employee who is performing below the standard.
To pay a probationary employee termination pay in lieu of notice.
Offer a reasonable explanation to the employee for their termination.
Where the terms of a contract can bear more than one possible interpretation ambiguities
Will be interpreted by a court in the way that seems to be in the best interest of both parties
Will always be interpreted against the drafter of the agreement
Will force the court to try to determine the intentions of both the parties
Will always result in the contract being unenforceable
What does the Forman in case tell us about fixed term employment contracts?
It is not possible to have a fixed term employment contract for the lifetime of an employee
The ESA does not apply to fixed term contracts
A contract for life requires greater clarity than other fixed term employment contracts
Contra proferentem arguments are always against the employer
Ted is a very successful musician. He is going on tour for 18 months. Ted knows that Fred is unemployed and they’ve been friends for years. Ted decided to hire Fred for 18 months to look after his house. Ted discussed all the details with Fred, including the payment of $1000 per month for the 18 months of the contract. Ted doesn’t like to put things in writing so he said, " Fred, We have to trust each other that will do what we say.“ They entered into the agreement with a handshake. Why isn’t this a valid contract?
All fixed term employment contracts lasting more than a year must be in writing.
Under the COVID-19 rules contracts cannot be sealed by a handshake since they are illegal.
All fixed term contracts must be in writing.
All employment contracts must be in writing.
Oanne left high school to work at Tastee-Burgher as counter help. Joanne signed a contract that paid her the minimum wage but allowed for merit increases. It included a clause to the effect that upon termination she would be paid two months salary. Joanne had a flair for the burgher business and after 18 years, she was marketing manager for Eastern Canada supervising a workforce of 400. There was a downturn in the market for burghers. The clientele wanted hot dogs instead. Reluctantly, management was purged and Joanne was let go and paid two months salary. On what basis could Joanne sue on her contract?
There was no consideration for the termination provision.
The contract did not have a termination clause.
The contract had become obsolete.
The contract was entered into in unconscionable circumstances.
If contract terms regarding termination do not at least meet or exceed the minimum statutory standards the provision is unenforceable and a court
Will allow the employee to negotiate reasonable damages with the employer
Will refuse to intervene because there is no contract for it to interpret
Will find the employer liable for damages in the statutory notice amounts
Will find the employer liable for full common law reasonable notice damages
If a court determines that a termination provision in a contract evaded the protections of the employment Standards Act the Court would
�Read the provision down” to the amount of notice guaranteed by the Employment Standards Act.
Strike out the whole termination provision and determine the employee’s rights under the common law.
Strike out the offending part of the provision and enforce the rest of the provision.
Award the employee damages based upon the employer’s attempt at fraud.
According to the court in the Freudenberg Household Products Inc v. DiGiammarino case, The cardinal presumption of interpretation of a contract
Is that the court must determine what the parties intended to write.
Is that the parties intended what the agreement says.
Is that the parties must give evidence as to what they intended to say in the contract.
Is that the parties must give evidence as to what they intended to say in the contract.
{"name":"EMPL 2302: Employment Law, Quiz 2", "url":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/QPREVIEW","txt":"What is a requirement pursuant to the Statute of Frauds, What of the following is NOT a necessary element of a valid contract?, Lindsey is being hired as a manager of a bookkeeping company. She receives only an offer letter and is told by her employer that this is all she will be receiving. Is this offer letter sufficient?","img":"https://www.quiz-maker.com/3012/images/ogquiz.png"}