Knarlesandbarkleydec09 Casestudy Final

TESC March 2010

LAW-201-OL010

Final Paper

There are many legal issues raised by this case. Before Chetum can even bring his case to court he would need to find the proper venue to hear his case (Cheeseman, 2007, p.54). Since Chetum’s contracted with Knarles and Barkley to work on his building in Virginia, Virginia’s courts would be the proper place. Although Knarles and Barkley’s business is located in Maryland, the long-arm statue extends Virginia’s jurisdiction to non-residents who have minimum contact or operate within their state (p.53).

Chetum would then have to file a complaint with the court to have a summons sent to Knarles and Barkley (p.57). Knarles and Barkley must then send an answer to Chetum’s complaint to avoid a default judgment being issued (p.58). Both parties will build their case during this litigation period and will engage in discovery, the process of discovering facts to support one’s case and obtain witnesses (p.60).

During this discovery period Mr. Chetum may find several facts to try to support his case. Particularly the fact that Knarles and Barkley’s plumber was not licensed. Mr. Chetum could try to use this undisclosed information to his advantage. The failure to renew the plumber’s license is a big oversight for Knarles and Barkley. The plumber himself could potentially sue for breach of contract in this regard. Although the plumber’s contract was not renewed in writing his continued employment with the company and Barkley’s intent but failure to renew the license makes this an implied-in-fact condition (p.262). The plumber himself likely wouldn’t sue and as an employee holds no liability for this oversight, but liability could be conferred to the principal, who in this case is Knarles and Barkley (p.496).

Chetum could use the unlicensed plumber as supporting evidence for his case, but the case would likely have much more to do with the contract established between Barkley while Mr. Knarles was in Hawaii. The...