Contract analysis SeraPixel, Inc. v. Maria Connelly and CeraPixel, Inc. Problem 3d Interactive, Inc. entered an agreement to buy SeraPixel, Inc. a company that developed high performance 3D graphics...

1 answer below »


Contract analysis




SeraPixel, Inc. v. Maria Connelly and CeraPixel, Inc.



Problem


3d Interactive, Inc. entered an agreement to buy SeraPixel, Inc. a company that developed high performance 3D graphics hardware and software from its founder, Maria Connelly. Because of the strong reputation of SeraPixel, 3d Interactive merged with SeraPixel. As part of that sale and merger, 3d Interactive entered the following agreement on July 20, 2000 with Maria Connelly, in which she sold her interest in SeraPixel (Ms. Connelly was the sole shareholder of SeraPixel.) Now, SeraPixel has learned that Ms. Connelly set up a new 3D graphics software development venture in Vancouver in December, 2001. As part of this new company, CeraPixel, Inc., Ms. Connelly hired one of SeraPixel’s top designer/developers, Garth Corbin. Mr. Corbin was an independent contractor who had worked on a consulting basis with 3d Interactive/SeraPixel full-time for two years.


SeraPixel wants to stop Ms. Connelly and CeraPixel from hiring Garth Corbin. Using the language of the contract and the relevant statutes, please analyze.

Answered Same DayOct 29, 2021

Answer To: Contract analysis SeraPixel, Inc. v. Maria Connelly and CeraPixel, Inc. Problem 3d Interactive, Inc....

Taruna answered on Oct 31 2021
143 Votes
3
Issue
    Whether or not, SeraPixel has the right to stop Ms. Connelly and CeraPixel Inc. to hire Barth Cobin from being a part of their 3D graphic venture based company. Given than Barth
has provided full time service as the graphic designer to SeraPixel, the compmay feels that it holds the right to retain Barth as its valuable professional. However, the issue is raised because of the nature of Barth’s professional bonding with SeraPixel; he has served the company as the independent contractor. Thus, formal obligation and legal provisions of being an independent contractor are applicable to the present case.
Law
    Various legal provisions of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as well as the guidelines of US Department of Labor (DOL) are applicable to the given case. Especially, the references should be given to the DOL’s fact sheet 13, the relationship of the employment under the Fair Labor standards Act (SHRM, 2020).
Application
    In the context of the language mentioned in the contract, Barth and SeraPixel both have to understand the legal context of the working acceptance of Barth with the company. If, in reality, a worker is an employee or an independent contractor is the most fundamental question about the employment relationship. As with so many problems with employment law, the answer is that it depends. It depends on who's asking in this case: the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), a hearing officer for workers ' compensation and so forth. Even the courts have acknowledged that there is not always a simple distinction (SHRM, 2020).
    Moreover, employee status causes employer responsibilities under separate federal and state regulations that do not apply to independent contractors, and the employer is squarely responsible for classifying a worker correctly (SHRM, 2020). The functional and legal distinctions between workers...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here