Case Study Business Law Case: Hallasz v. Maglica ECON 301 NAME: - SID# - Case Synopsis | PDF | Public Law | Private Law
Scribd
Upload
117 views

Case Study Business Law Case: Hallasz v. Maglica ECON 301 NAME: - SID# - Case Synopsis

Claire Hallasz helped Anthony Maglica run his machine shop business from 1971 until 1992 when Anthony fired her after a dispute. The business grew significantly under Claire's leadership and ideas to be valued at £200 million by 1992. Claire sued Anthony for compensation for her role in building the business. The court found that Anthony was unjustly enriched by Claire's work and decided to calculate compensation using the principle of quantum meruit, or reasonable remuneration for services rendered.

Uploaded by

Aouniza Ahmed
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
117 views

Case Study Business Law Case: Hallasz v. Maglica ECON 301 NAME: - SID# - Case Synopsis

Claire Hallasz helped Anthony Maglica run his machine shop business from 1971 until 1992 when Anthony fired her after a dispute. The business grew significantly under Claire's leadership and ideas to be valued at £200 million by 1992. Claire sued Anthony for compensation for her role in building the business. The court found that Anthony was unjustly enriched by Claire's work and decided to calculate compensation using the principle of quantum meruit, or reasonable remuneration for services rendered.

Uploaded by

Aouniza Ahmed
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Case Study

Business Law
Case: Hallasz v. Maglica
ECON 301

NAME: _______________ SID#________

CASE SYNOPSIS: {TOTAL 17 ½ marks}

Anthony Maglica founded a machine shop business called Mag Instruments in 1955. In 1971, Claire Hallasz informally
helped Anthony run the business. Despite the fact that Claire worked with Anthony to build up Mag Instruments, which
was incorporated in 1974, all the shares of the corporation were issued upon formation to Anthony as President and
Company Founder. Claire as Secretary was paid £1000/month from January 1, 1974 onward.

Starting from January 1, 1978, the business began manufacturing flashlights and, thanks to the hard work and ideas of
Claire, the business boomed to be valued at £200,000,000 on January 1, 1992, when, as a result of a dispute between
them, Anthony fired Claire. Claire filed suit for compensation utilizing a variety of legal theories as a cause of action for
her case against Anthony.

Plaintiff’s attorney demonstrated that the business grew by £84,000,000 because of the hard work and initiative of
Claire. Had Anthony hired a professional new product developer, it would have cost him no less than £4000/month.

Part I. Case-Based questions (requiring the use of the case to answer the questions) [1 mark/question]

[1] What is the jurisdiction of the case?


[2] Identify the theories of the case of action of this case. (Do not explain them.)
[3] How does Anthony attempt to limit his liability to Claire using the Statute of Limitations and does the Judge accede to
his attempt? Explain.
[4] What procedural matter, at the lower court level, does the judge address in the current appellate court case?
[5] Is this a final adjudication of the substantive law claim contained in the case? Explain.

Part II. For the following questions assume that the Common Law jurisdiction in the case is that of England & Wales
(UK)1

I. Suppose that Anthony upon releasing Claire offered her £8,000,000 for past services in product
development previously rendered and an ex gratia payment of £4,000,000. [3 marks]

1. Make arguments for and against past consideration in this case (in which case Claire would be denied
recovery beyond the salary she already collected).
2. Identify two cases having precedential value to this case. Explain the nature of the precedential value.
3. Why is stipulating the jurisdiction is England & Wales critical for answering 2 (above)?

II. Suppose that Claire worked for Anthony as a contractor, from the formation of the corporation in 1974
onward, upon receipt of a letter of intent 2 that Anthony provided Claire (that Claire never acknowledged) to
provide product development services …
1. without ever subsequently negotiating a draft agreement. Would Claire be entitled to recover on the
basis of breach of contract or unjust enrichment? Explain briefly. [1/2 mark]
2. while subsequently negotiating a draft agreement. Would Claire be entitled to recover on the basis of
breach of contract or unjust enrichment? Explain briefly. [1/2 mark]

1
Assume the absence of a Common Law marriage between the parties.
2
In that letter of intent Anthony declared an intent to pay Claire £1000 per month in return for consulting services.
III. Suppose that Claire cohabited with (but was not married to) Anthony, who made promises to Claire
contained in I (above). [2 marks]

1. Explain which rebuttable presumption would apply.


2. After having identified the correct rebuttable presumption to use [RP#1 or RP#2]:
a. Which party is prejudiced by the presumption?
b. What evidence, if any, can that party present to rebut that rebuttable presumption?

IV. Suppose that Claire lived separately from and was not married to Anthony, who made promises to Claire
contained in I (above). [2 marks]

1. Explain which rebuttable presumption would apply.


2. After having identified the correct rebuttable presumption to use [RP#1 or RP#2]:
a. Which party is prejudiced by the presumption?
b. What evidence, if any, can that party present to rebut that rebuttable presumption?

V. Assume that the judge, agreeing with the finding of a jury, that Anthony was unjustly enriched by the
services of Claire, decides to calculate compensation for Claire on the basis of quantum meruit.

1. In the space below, calculate the award to Claire in British pounds (£). [ 2 ½ marks]

Calculations:

2. Explain your calculations.[Hint: start your discussion with the definition of quantum meruit (reasonable
remuneration goods supplied and/or services rendered)] being sure not to repeat the error the jury
made in the original case]. [2 marks]

You might also like