Was a fair result handed down in this matter?

Legally, the result of the case was fair and accurate. The Statute of Frauds was clear on such kind of agreements. First, as a paralegal, Sawyer should have known that such an agreement was not enforceable. Again, Sawyer taped the agreement without the consent of the lawyer, which is unethical and unlawful (Cheeseman, 2013). Mills on the other hand seem to have been aware of the legality of the oral agreement given that he refused to sign the written agreement. He knew that the oral agreement was unenforceable. In the legal field, the decision of the judge was accurate. However, from a moral point of view, the decision was unfair. The paralegal came up with the idea, also pushed for its implementation, and so deserved the bonus. In addition, the paralegal was not asking for the entire amount earned in the case rather it was just a bonus. Mills was willing to pay the bonus in that he had already started but at some point, he changed. The court could not force Mills to act morally, but he should have acted morally.

What, if anything, would you do to modify the Court’s decision?

From a legal point of view, nothing could be done to modify the court’s decision. Mills actually had a chance of suing the paralegal for taping the oral agreement without his consent. However, to modify the court’s decision, I would have convinced the judge that the paralegal had taken a great part in the earning of the money involved. It was her idea engage in class action lawsuits. The engagement finally happened after her assistance and persistence. Therefore, she took a great part in the implementation of the idea and thus deserved the bonus.

Reference

Cheeseman, H. R. (2013). Business Law (8 ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved March 29, 2016

Response to David Rivera

Hi David, great work there. The Statute of Frauds was in favor of Mills. However, I do agree with you that morally, the ruling was unfair. The paralegal came up with the idea, also pushed for its implementation, and so deserved the bonus. In addition, the paralegal was not asking for the entire amount earned in the case rather it was just a bonus. I think Mills was aware of the consequences when he made an oral agreement. He knew that such an agreement was unenforceable. I also feel that Mills should have been more ethical and responsible and pay the bonus. Legally, there was nothing that on could have done in this case. However, in that Mills had already started to make the payments, I would convince the judge that Mills should finish what he started. It was unethical for mills to start paying the bonus only to stop after some time.

Response to Brooke Chelette

Great piece of work Brooke, certain agreements as portrayed in this case require a written agreement. Legally, the court’s decision was accurate and enforceable. Again, the recording of the agreement was not legal given that mills did not consent. However, the paralegal was just trying to protect herself from what exactly happened. She thought she was acquiring prove of an agreement. It turned out that the agreement was unenforceable. You seem to feel that the paralegal acted unethically by taping the oral agreement. I feel that the paralegal was just trying to protect her interests. The only thing she did was to approach this issue wrongly. She should have known from the start that such an oral agreement was unenforceable. To some point, I agree that as a paralegal, she had the legal knowledge to know that such an agreement is unenforceable. However, from a moral point of view, Mills should have paid her what she deserved for she had earned it.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?