Knarles and Barkley Case Study

The case on Knarles and Barkley revolves around the two characters, a father and a
son. They both own a facilities maintenance Company, which operates in towns such as
Columbia, Marlyland and Virgiania. In order to operate effectively, they have entered into
several contracts with building owners whereby they have agreed to offer building
maintenance services to both residential and commercial buildings. For their services, they
also wash windows, remove snow and do touch-up painting for various buildings
(Cheeseman, 2016). In order to run its services effectively, Knarles and Barkley has four full-
time employees. Among these employees, a license plumber lives in Columbia district. The
firm pays for his yearly license as part of an employment agreement, but when Barely is left
in charge of renewal, he forgets to do saw this year. Knarles travels to Hawaii and Barkley
unwareless enters into a contract with Chetum, a building owner in Northern Virginia. The
Company’s plumber notices that Chetum uses poor equipment for his boiler, since it is
defective (Cheeseman, 2016). The building owner refuses to make changes, and later,
residents from his building get sick and others admitted to hospital. When Knarles returns
from his trip, he Tells Chetum that he wants to break the agreement, and as a result, Chetum
sues for breach of contract.

Ethical and Legal Issues

After a clear analysis of this case, there are certain legal issues that arise. First, there
is a question on whether Knarles breaches the contract after trying to break the agreement
between his Company and Chetum. In regards to this situation, a question raises on whether
Chetum has a right to sue Knarles and his Company for breaching the contract. On the other
hand, a question raises on whether Knarles is justified to break the agreement considering his
awareness of Chetum’s reputation (Cheeseman, 2016). Does breaking the contract intend to

KNARLES AND BARKLEY CASE STUDY 3
protect his Company? Such legal issues arise since they involve actions monitored by the law
and signed agreements.
The case also brings out some of the ethical issues especially in regards to the way
Barkley manages the business. Frist, he forgets to renew the license of the Company’s
Plumbers who is among the full-time employees. His license renewal occurs after every year,
and this has happened for four years now (Cheeseman, 2016). Both Knarles and Barkley have
agreed to this, but as a result Barkley inadvertence, he does not renew the license. This raises
the ethical question on whether Barkley is a competent worker. Ethical issues arise when it
comes to ignoring some of the vital procedures, such as lacking to renew the license. Clearly,
the plumber fulfills most of the vital duties assigned by the Company; hence, it is only fair to
renew his license as it is always done (Cheeseman, 2016). Lacking to renew this license
shows disregards and ignorance, which are unethical and undesirable qualities. It also shows
that Knarles should not fully rely on his son to fulfill some of the vital operational procedures
in the Company.
Another ethical issue arises when there is dilemma on whether Knarles should protect
his Company by breaking the contract with Chetum, or ignore and continue doing business
for him. Knarles is aware of the fact that Chetum is not a legit businessperson; hence, it is
only logic for him to try and protect his company by breaking the contract with Chetum. In
this case, he has a hard decision to make, breaching the contract or protecting his Company,
since working with Chetum with jeopardize his firm’s operations and reputation.

Breach of Contract

Based on the facts of the case, Chetum has a right to sue Knarles for a breach of
contract. From the beginning of the case, it is evident that both Knarles and Barkley represent
a single entity. This means that decisions made by either of the partners are for the whole
Company. In this case, Barkley enters into an agreement with Chetum; hence, a contract is

KNARLES AND BARKLEY CASE STUDY 4
formed between their Maintenance Company and Chetum’s. Despite Knarles’ justified
reasons to break the contact, Chetum already signed an official agreement with Barkley on
behalf of the Company (Mann and Roberts, 2013). Therefore, Knarles has breached the
contract because he does not openly honor the binding agreement, since he interferes with the
initial contract. According to Knarles, he does not want to issue more services to Chetum,
which is contrary to the signed agreement.
In a bid to defend his case, Knarles might claim that the signing of the contract took
place in his absence; hence, it is not legit. Knarles is aware of Chetum illegal deeds when it
comes to running his business, and this is the reason he does not want to enter in an
agreement with him. Moreover, he can claim that he did not breach the contract because
when he breaks the contract, none of the two parties will undergo a loss. For instance, when
he goes to Chetum telling him to break the contract, he tells him to minus the charge for the
work already completed by the plumber (Mann and Roberts, 2013). This means that both
parties will not undergo any losses. However, what Knarles forgets is that he is an individual,
but Chetum made an agreement with the Company. When Barkley signed the contract, it
represented the whole company and not just an individual. Form this, it is clear that by trying
to break the agreement, Knarles is breaching the contract.
Crimes

Criminal acts are also evident in this case. Crime does not necessarily refer to
criminal activities such as physical robbery, but any act that is not legal or in accordance with
the law. Therefore, one cannot only categorize crimes as only violent crimes or property
crimes. In this case, Chetum engages in certain criminal activities when he refuses to new his
boiler. When inspecting the non-functional boiler that Chetum has set in the building, the
plumber realizes that the same boiler was the one recalled by the manufacturer (Meiners,
Ringleb, and Edwards, 2012). According to Housewarm, the boiler has a defect that does not

KNARLES AND BARKLEY CASE STUDY 5
allow the carbon monoxide produced by the boiler to ventilate properly. Chetum is clearly
aware of this defect, but he goes ahead and requests the plumber to fix it. This is a serious
crime since this boiler poses health risks to those living in the area. His main reason is that he
does not want to purchase a new boiler, but health inspectors will find this illegal since it
jeopardizes the health of others. When told about this problem and advised to purchase a new
boiler, he refuses and insists that the plumber should fix it. Later a number of residents in the
building become sick and admitted to hospital for observation purposes. According to
medical officers, these residents were suffering from exposure to carbon monoxide. From
this, it is evident that lacking to renew the plumber is a crime, since it saves his financial
expenses but damages the health of the occupants.
Jurisdiction

The aspect of jurisdiction is also evident in this case, especially on the part of Knarles.
Jurisdiction simply refers to the act of having an official power to make legal decisions and
judgments. Jurisdiction gives an individual the power to administer justice within a defined
area. For this case analysis, Knarles owns a maintenance Company. Because of running the
Company for several years, he is aware of what is good and bad for the Company. Moreover,
he is in a position to make legal decisions whereby he knows what the best operational
procedures are for his Company (Heriot and Scarborough, 2006). For example, Knarles is
aware of the fact that the plumber is one of the most vital employees; hence, it is only fair to
make him a full-time employee and renew his license every year. He has done that for four
years now, since according to him, it is the right legal procedure if a manager wants to
maintain an employer for a long time. Secondly, Knarles does not want to form a contract
with Chetum because he knows about his unethical business deeds. In order to protect his
Company, he request Chetum to break the contract. From this, it is clear that as one of the

KNARLES AND BARKLEY CASE STUDY 6
owners, Knarles is in a position to make legal decisions and judgments that help in retaining
his Company.

Tort

A tort is another legal issue evident in this case. According to the common law, Tort
is a form of civil wrong that unfairly causes an individual to suffer loss or harm, and this
results in legal liability for the person who engages in the tortious act. For this case, Chetum
should face the law for jeopardizing the health of the building’s occupants, which makes
them to incur losses (Heriot and Scarborough, 2006). Thus, the victims who suffer from loss
are the occupants while Chetum commits the tortious act. From the analysis, it is evident that
Chetum was aware of the poor condition of the boiler. However, he still went ahead and
insisted on the plumber to fix it. By this at, he puts the lives of many people at risk.
Additionally, the plumber also engaged in a tortious act by fixing the boiler even
though he was aware of the risks it would pose to the residents. He commits a tortious act
under the influence, but this does not justify his act. Even though he warned Chetum and
Barkley about the health risks of making the plumber, he should have rejected the request to
repair it. On the contrary, he fixed the boiler, and as a result, many people suffered from
health complications. One cannot defend the plumber by claiming that he feared being fired,
since he was a full-time employee and the Maintenance Company had signed a contract with
him (Heriot and Scarborough, 2006). Lastly, one can also blame Barkley for engaging in a
tortious act since he authorized for the repair of the boiler. As the manager of the
Maintenance Company, he was supposed to break the agreement since it meant putting the
lives of many residents at risk. However, he went ahead and allowed the plumber to fix the
defective boiler. Although crimes are considered as torts, the cause of legal action is not
considered a crime, since the harm may be due to negligence, which is not categorized as
criminal negligence.

KNARLES AND BARKLEY CASE STUDY 7

Contract Formation

Basically, the formation of a contract is a process, whereby all concerned parties are
involved. A contract is formed after reading of an email acceptance and sending of the same
email. The parties involved in a contract should come to a solid agreement when forming a
contract, such that the conditions and rules set are fair for all (Meiners, Ringleb, and
Edwards, 2012). For this case analysis, Chetum and Barkley did not follow the right
procedures when forming a contract. Unlike Chetum who owns the buildings alone, Barkley
is in partnership with his father, and he should not ignore this. Therefore, in order to form a
legit contract, Brkely should have confronted Knarles or waited for him to come back from
his trip.

Remedies

In order to run the Maintenance Company effectively, Barkley and Knarles must
come upwith certain remedies to the issues facing them. First, Barkley must learn how to
fulfill all the duties and responsibilities assigned to him by Knarles (Mann nd Roberts, 2013).
They both play the role of a manager; hence, he should assist Knarles with some tasks such as
renewing the plumber’s contract every year. Another remedy is that both members should be
fully involved when it comes to making contracts with other companies (Mann and Roberts,
2013). Barkley should learn to confront his partner before making any legal procedures that
might affect the Company’s operations. Implementing these remedies will ensure that the
Company runs in an effective manner.

Sales Contract

Sales contracts are legal contracts; hence, the parties involved should follow all
procedures in accordance to the law. A sales contract basically represents an agreement
between the party offering services and the party receiving the same services. Chetum formed

KNARLES AND BARKLEY CASE STUDY 8
a sales contract, since the Maintenance Company was issuing Chetum’s buildings with
plumbing services (Mann and Roberts, 2013). Since it is a legal contract, all members of a
given Company should be informed before any agreements are made. Chetum cannot be
blames since according to him, Barkley was the manager; hence, he signed a contract with
the Maintenance Company. The contradiction came in because Knarles was convinced that
Chetum was not a legit individual. Therefore, before making sales contracts, all members
should agree.

Conclusion

This case revolves around three characters, who include Knarles and Barkley, who
own the Maintenance Company, and Chetum the owner of the buildings. The plumber is also
a vital member, since he is a full-time employee who repairs Chetum’s boilers. Some of the
legal issues that arise from this case include breach of contract, tortious act, jurisdiction, and
ethical issues. Chetum sues the Maintenance Company, claiming that Knarles has breached
the contract. In addition, there is evidence, which proves that Chetum engages in criminal
activities by using defective equipment to serve the residents. The remedies presented for this
case help to ensure that business runs smoothly, and that there is cooperation between the
Company owners.

KNARLES AND BARKLEY CASE STUDY 9

References

Cheeseman, H. R. (2016). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business
ethics, and international issues.
Heriot, K. C., & Scarborough, N. M. (2006). Cases in entrepreneurship and small business
management. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Mann, R. A., & Roberts, B. S. (2013). Essentials of business law and the legal environment.
Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning
Meiners, R. E., Ringleb, A. H., & Edwards, F. L. (2012). The legal environment of business.
Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.