In Canada, there is a very stringent law governing the conduct of business investors. These laws are clearly stipulated to govern the conduct of stakeholders in the business sector. They range from interpersonal contact to the corporate ethical issues. This piece tackles a series of legal issues that ensued between two firms that had entered into a formal engagement before the occurrence of incidents that prompted either of the parties to file a legal petition in the pursuit of justice in a court of law.
To begin with, a plaintiff is a person or group of persons who files a case to seek the indulgence of the court in order to fight for justice for the alleged offence made against it. In this context, the plaintiff is the firm that was feeling that its rights had been violated by the firm with which it had signed a contract. This is why it went to the court of law in order to be able to find an amicable solution to the tussle between.
On the other hand, a defendant is a person, group of persons or an entity who is summoned in the court of law to answer the charges leveled against them by the plaintiff. Hence, it obviously becomes the role of the defendant to appear in the court of law as warranted in order to be able to defend themselves against the alleged charges. In this regard, the defendant in this case refers to the firm that was issued with a warrant to send a representation during the hearings and mentions of the said case. Here, they are expected to appear before the bench to defend itself.
Actually, this is a civil case that requires the court to adopt civil laws to be able to reach a more satisfactory ruling that will eventually bind the defendant into a civil action. This means that if they are proved guilty, they will be expected to pay for the damages suffered.
In this scenario, the plaintiff accuses the defendant for allegedly breaching the contract which they had signed before. After agreeing to be in a franchising deal with this other bigger firm, the contract was binding. This means that neither of the parties was expected not to honor it. Therefore, failing to keep such a pledge is a violation of business law and is a major issue of ethical concern that needs to be dealt with so stringently.
I think the plaintiff was right and justified to seek the indulgence of the court of law. Once a deal has been signed between two different parties, it should be considered binding and adhered to at all costs. I also agree with the fact that individuals should be made aware of the importance of practicing healthy business behaviors. This creates a favorable business environment that will accommodate all sorts of investors.
Hence, if I were to give a judgment in this case, I would rule in favor of the plaintiff. I strongly believe that the Canadian law is very much concerned about the welfare of business people. This helps to make the business stakeholders to be very cautious and responsible in their operations. By doing this, my ruling would act as an example to others who may be planning to do the same offence. Therefore, I will definitely be able to produce a conducive environment for the business operations.