MBA 663: CANADIAN AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS LAW
MAJOR GROUP PROJECT ASSIGNMENT
Overview
Students will complete a continuing and comprehensive set of legal problems and analyses working in groups. Students will use the facts provided in the problem, their learnings in the course and research to complete the project.
Evaluation
The grade for the assignment will be calculated as follows:
Project Submission (30%):
· 80% grade for the answers to the problems. Each question has different requirements. Generally, answers must:
o Satisfy the requirements of the questions.
o Where required, accurately state the law or principle.
o Provide thorough analyses and explanations.
o Make appropriate use of secondary sources, case law and legislation where required.
o Present clear and logical arguments. The reader can easily follow the line of reasoning.
· 20% grade for overall presentation:
o Coherent, clear and concise writing.
o Adheres to principles of grammar and appropriate use of punctuation.
o Well-organized presentation.
o References follow APA formatting guidelines.
Each of the problems has a designated number of marks available and a maximum word count. The maximum word count is not a required word count. Some problems have specific questions that require answers. Other problems require an IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) analysis. Instructions on how to complete an IRAC analysis will be provided separately.
You will need to do external research for some of the questions. If case law or legislative research is required, it will be noted in the question. Otherwise, the text, lectures, other secondary sources, information on government websites and articles should be used.
Submission
One submission for the group must be made to the dropboxes provided on Moodle by the due date. The submission must be in Word, double-spaced, and 12-point font on letter-sized paper. APA style citations and a reference list are required. Please do not use the size A4 page.
Hints and Tips
· Please pay close attention to what the question asks of you and answer it. Also, pay attention to the instructions. If the question does not indicate that you need to do additional research to answer the question, you should be able to answer the question using course materials (i.e., the text and lectures).
- Use headings. This helps the reader understand the organization and flow of the paper.
- There is rarely, if ever, a need to use an exclamation point in academic writing. Do not do it.
ASSIGNMENT
Introduction:
Mark is a senior software engineer at a video game design company based in Vancouver, B.C. The company, DigiPlay (DP), is very successful with numerous popular titles and services. Over the last few years, its growth strategy has shifted to a service model rather than reliance on titles. DP’s head office is in Vancouver, and it has offices and development campuses globally.
Mark has a Master of Science degree from UBC. He has been working at DP since he graduated from the UBC program eight years ago. He received a work experience opportunity while in the MSc program and was offered a position after graduation. DP is a good company to work for. It pays very well and has many perks, including stock options, education opportunities, and progressive leave arrangements. Mark has done very well at the company, has always received glowing performance reviews, and now manages a team of five engineers.
Part B
Problem 3: One day, Mark gets a call on his cell from a human resource manager at a game development firm in California. A former colleague, Philip, has given his name as a reference for a new job. Philip was a software engineer at DP for ten years before quitting last year to take a break and travel for six months. While everyone liked Philip, after he left DP, rumours circulated that Philip had breached confidentiality agreements and given trade secrets to a competitor. Unfortunately, Mark forgets that DP has a corporate policy that only direct supervisors can provide references. He tells the human resource manager the following:
“I liked working with Philip. He was a great engineer and always met deadlines. He did good work. However, after he left the company, we found out that he was dishonest. He gave some code to a competitor. He probably got paid for it.”
Three weeks later, DP and Mark get a letter from Philip’s lawyer. The letter alleges that Mark’s statements to the HR manager were defamatory. Philip threatens to sue Mark and DP for $5,000,000 because he did not get the job and has lost out on all the benefits, including stock options, because of Mark’s statement.
Using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) method, analyze the liability of both Mark and DP. Include an analysis of any applicable defences. In your analysis, include at least one case from BC or another Canadian jurisdiction that deals with defamation committed by an employee.
(25 marks; Max 1500 words)
Problem 4: Unfortunately, DP did not take any of the steps Katie recommended in her report under Problem 2. Four months after DP became aware of the weakness in their software, they had a significant security breach. Hackers obtained the personal information of millions of customers worldwide. Users quickly noticed that thieves were using their credit card numbers, and a public website was discovered that listed all of the users’ private information.
Within two weeks of customers becoming aware of the breach, a class-action lawsuit was filed against DP in Vancouver. The representative plaintiff was claiming, among other things, negligence.
Using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) method, analyze DP’s liability in negligence.
HINT: You do not need to discuss privacy-related torts or legislation. Discuss negligence only.
(25 marks; Max. 1500 words)