Mot Law Negotiations

Final Exam, One Year MBA, Summer 2017

Question 1 (a)

Epoxy – Trade Secret

Miles of Tiles – Trademark

Glue Goo - Trademark

‘‘Catchy’’ name for tool – Potential Trademark Opportunity

User Manual for Instructions – Copyright Opportunity

Tile Laying Technique – Patent Opportunity

Device to affix tiles in a certain pattern – Patent Opportunity

New Tool to cut Ceramic Tiles – Patent Opportunity

Question 1 (b)

In order to build value for the company, it is essential that Intellectual Property owned by MOT do not passively sit on the company’s register. MOT should use its IP creatively and pro-actively to turn them into commercially valuable assets for the company. MOT can adopt a value based IP management system. One of the ways by which the company can generate revenue streams is by out licensing their new tool to cut ceramic tiles or the process by which the tiles are laid.  The IP that MOP possesses may have high attractiveness in the market and the company can considerably build brand value and awareness by licensing the technology to the ‘‘larger companies’’ that are interested. Lastly, to ensure sustainability of this strategy, MOT must be prepared to enforce its IP assets against possible infringers, that might in turn affect the company’s revenue.

Question 2 (a)

Greg could sue Sandy for: 1. Breach of Contract and 2. Misrepresentation and Fraud

1. Breach of Contract

Greg could sue Sandy on the grounds of non-performance of her contractual obligations. Initially, Sandy makes two payments which would constitute as a Minor Breach (Not performing exactly as promised but still giving a substantial performance). However, as she eventually “outright refused to pay him anything’’, the situation now translates into a Material Breach (Failure to give substantial performance). This provides Greg with a strong argument against Sandy.

2. Misrepresentation and Fraud

Alternatively, Greg could sue Sandy on grounds of Misrepresentation. “One party has been induced by justifiable reliance on the other party's misrepresentation of a material fact (or an opinion if an expert or if the parties are in a fiduciary relationship)”. Since Greg based his decision to move to Texas primarily based on the contracts produced by Sue whereas in reality, Sue didn’t have those contracts (Kent-Town and DART) to begin with. He was deceived into believing that “this is a very good business” and that “he’d make about $8500 per month”.  Moreover, Sandy breached her fiduciary duty to the partnership by “deducting personal expenses before calculating Greg’s share of profit…...and trips to Mexico”.  As a result, Greg could also press for charges of Fraud against Sue. (Misrepresentation was made with knowledge that it was false.)

The statements thus affirm that the Greg may be successful if he files a lawsuit based on the aforementioned grounds.

Question 2 (b)

I would advise Greg not to sue Sandy at this juncture. There isn’t overwhelmingly strong evidence that Greg could reply on as Sandy would argue that Greg was well aware of the risks when he signed an agreement, given the fact that (a) “they negotiated the terms of working together” for three months and (b) “he stayed and observed the business for several days” on the basis of which he decided to invest in the business.  I would instead encourage Gregg to evaluate other options he can realistically pursue:

Compensatory Damages (Settlement) - Greg has received $30,000 but has not been compensated $10,000 for the time and money he spent to move to Texas, apart from other expenses incurred. The law dictates that in cases where one party breaches a contract, “the court’s goal is to award plaintiff the amount of money that would put the plaintiff in the same position they would have been in had the contract been performed”. Thereby, Gregg could use this approach to justify his claim that “he was owed much more” than what he received.

Equitable Remedies:  Injunction & Specific Performance – As Sandy had “sole check-writing privileges” and also refused Gregg his right to see accounting records, Gregg could file for Injunction (A court order, prohibiting the defendant from continuing in a certain course of activity). This would enable him not only to have the right to hire an accountant to audit the business, but also have the ability to make business decisions as an equal partner.

After careful evaluation of both scenarios, I would advise Greg to claim Compensatory Damages; there is strong evidence for the same. There is also a chance (albeit very small) that he could successfully appeal for Punitive Damages. Along with this, I would also suggest him to file for Rescission.