FALL 2021 - Final EXAM Review Packet - LAW 1101 PDF

Preview

Summary

LAW 1101- PROF. FOLKS/ FALL 2021FINAL EXAM REVIEW – LEGAL RULES AND SAMPLE PROBLEMSI. CHAPTER 5 – TORTS/NEGLIGENCELEGAL RULE Four elements needed to prove Negligence SAMPLE PROBLEM Denise owns and operates a chiropractic office in midtown Manhattan. On December 2nd she noticed that one of the chairs...

Description

LAW 1101- PROF. FOLKS/ FALL 2021 FINAL EXAM REVIEW – LEGAL RULES AND SAMPLE PROBLEMS I.

CHAPTER 5 – TORTS/NEGLIGENCE LEGAL RULE 1. Four elements needed to prove Negligence SAMPLE PROBLEM Denise owns and operates a chiropractic office in midtown Manhattan. On December 2 nd she noticed that one of the chairs she uses to give examinations on had a crack in one of its legs. She thought that the chair would be fine until she could replace it with a cheaper version. Unfortunately, Doug came in later that day for his appointment and sat down on the chair. The chair collapsed and a piece of wood from the cracked chair leg broke off and stabbed Doug in the leg. Doug screamed very loudly because of the intense pain. His screams were so loud that Gigi, who was outside riding her bike 2 blocks away, was startled and crashed into a parked car breaking her ankle. Both Doug and Gigi want to sue Denise to recover for their injuries. (a) In an action by Doug against Denise to recover damages for his injuries, judgment for whom? Explain fully. Judgment is for Doug. Doug could prove all four elements for negligence. Denise owed a duty of care to Doug because he was a business invitee and she breached this duty of care to warn him of the non-obvious risk of him getting injured by the broken chair. In addition, Denise was both the actual and proximate cause of Doug’s injury because “but for” Denise’s not removing the broken chair, Doug would not have gotten hurt and Doug, as an invitee to her business, was a foreseeable victim in the “zone of danger.” Lastly, Doug suffered a legally recognizable injury as a result of the chair leg breaking off and stabbing him in the leg. (b) In an action by Gigi against Denise to recover damages for her injuries, judgment for whom? Explain fully. Judgment is for Denise. Gigi would not be able to prove a negligence claim because (1) Denise did not appear to owe a duty of care to Gigi and (2) there was no proximate causation involved as Gigi was not a foreseeable victim. There was no direct connection between Denise’s conduct and Gigi’s injury, as Gigi was 2 blocks away when Doug’s scream startled her and caused her to crash into the parked car.

II.

CHAPTER 6 – PRODUCTS LIABILITY/ STRICT LIABILITY LEGAL RULES 1. Six (6) requirements for products liability lawsuit based on strict liability and who can be sued in a strict product liability lawsuit.

2. Requirements needed to prove products liability based on negligence and who can be sued. SAMPLE PROBLEM Christian was visiting his cousin Frankie at Frankie’s new apartment. Christian, feeling thirsty, asked Frankie if he had anything to drink. Frankie told him yes and got Christian a bottle of Pepsi that he had bought at Rite Aid. Christian started to open the old style glass bottle and it shattered in his hand severely cutting him and requiring 25 stitches to repair his hand. The bottle had been part of an error at the Pepsi manufacturing plant that caused the glass to be more fragile and likely to break than usual. However, this defect was not visible and Pepsi, Rite Aid and Frankie did not behave negligently in causing or not noticing the defect. Christian decides to sue Pepsi and Rite Aid. (a) Does Christian have a claim against Pepsi? Explain fully. Yes, Christian does have a strict product liability claim against Pepsi because he could prove all six elements needed: (1) the Pepsi glass bottle appeared to be in a defective condition when it was sold because the facts show that the bottle was fragile because of an error in the Pepsi manufacturing plant, (2) Pepsi was connected to the product because it manufactured the bottle, (3) the bottle shattering made it unreasonably dangerous, (4) Christian was physically harmed, requiring 25 stitches, (5) the defective bottle was the proximate cause of Christian’s injury, and (6) there is no evidence that the bottle had been substantially changed from the time the bottle was sold to the time Christian’s suffered his injury. (b) Does Christian have a claim against Rite Aid? Explain fully. Yes, Christian also has a strict product liability claim against Rite Aid as well. All six requirements, as mentioned above, can be proven as applied to Rite Aid. Under the theory of strict product liability, Rite Aid, as a retailer, has a connection to the product and therefore can be sued.

III.

CHAPTER 11–AGREEMENT (OFFER & ACEPTANCE) LEGAL RULES 1. 2. 3. 4.

General revocation rule/ revocable offers General acceptance rule /Mailbox Rule (by mail, phone, e-mail) Firm offers by merchants/non-merchants (also called irrevocable offers) Option contracts

SAMPLE PROBLEM 1

On December 1, Erica, a computer salesperson, sent a signed letter to Julia, also a computer salesperson, offering to buy from Julia three used laptops for a total of $450. In the letter, which accurately described the computers and indicated the price, Erica wrote; “I promise to keep this firm offer open to you for 4 months from today. (Signed) Erica.” On March 23, Erica decided that she did not want to buy the computers anymore. On that same day, Erica sent a letter to Julia telling her that the offer was no longer open. Julia received the letter on March 27. After reading the letter, Julia was furious. Later that day, on March 27, Julia sent a letter to Erica saying, “I accept your offer of December 1.” Erica received this letter on April 2. Erica refused to pay for the computers. Julia sued Erica for breach of contract. (a) Judgment for whom? Explain. Judgment is for Erica. Erica is a merchant offeror who made a signed, written firm offer to Julia for 4 months, from December 1st to April 1st, and as a result could revoke her offer to Julia after the third month of the four month period had passed (after March 1st). Therefore, when Erica sent her revocation letter to Julia, which Julia received and read on March 27th, the firm offer was effectively terminated. Julia’s attempt to accept later that day on March 27th was too late. No contract was formed. (b) Assume that Erica and Julia are both soccer players by profession and not computer salespersons. Judgment for whom? Explain. Judgement is for Julia. If Erica and Julia were non-merchant soccer players the firm offer rule would be different. As a non-merchant offeror, Erica was bound the full four months not to revoke her offer to Julia. Therefore, Erica was not supposed to revoke the offer to Julia until after April 1st. Her attempt to revoke her offer in March was not effective. As a result, when Julia sent her acceptance letter on March 27th, via the Mailbox Rule, a contract was formed. (c) Assume again the facts in (b) (that Erica and Julia are both soccer players) and that Erica had made the offer orally on her cell phone and not in writing. Judgment for whom? Explain. Judgment would be for Erica, This would be a revocable offer and not a firm offer because the promise was made orally and firm offers must be made in a signed writing. Regarding regular, revocable offers, as long as the offeror revokes the offer before the offeree accepts and the offeree actually knows about the revocation, the offer may be effectively terminated. In this case, the offeree, Julia, did not send her acceptance letter until after she had already been notified of Erica’s revocation.

SAMPLE PROBLEM 2 On May 1, Sonia, the owner of a garden supply company sends an offer to Jasmine, the owner of a flower shop, “I will sell you 100 pounds of my new plant food, for a total cost of $1,000. I need to sell this item quickly, so the offer will expire in 10 days from today.” (Signed) Sonia. On May 2, Jasmine receives the letter from Sonia.

On the morning of May 3, Sonia realizes that she can sell the plant food for a higher price to a different buyer so she sends Jasmine a second letter stating: “Sorry, I withdraw my previous offer of May 1 to sell you plant food” (Signed) Sonia. Due to a delay in the mail, Jasmine does not receive the second letter until May 7. On May 3, after sending the second letter to Jasmine, Sonia sells the plant food to a different buyer. Meanwhile on May 6, Jasmine calls Sonia and accepts her original offer. Sonia informs Jasmine that she cannot sell her the plant food since she already sold it to another buyer. Jasmine sues Sonia to recover damages for breach of contract. Judgment for whom? Explain fully.

Judgement is for Jasmine. Sonia’s attempted revocation of her offer to Jasmine was not effective because, while she sent the revocation letter before Jasmine accepted the offer, a revocation is not considered effective until the offeree receives and actually knows of the revocation before it is accepted. In this case, Jasmine had already accepted the offer on May 6th before she found out about the revocation on May 7th, therefore, the offer was not terminated when Jasmine “sent” her acceptance on May 6th.

SAMPLE PROBLEM 3 Tom asks Ed if he was interested in buying his house. Ed replied that he was interested but that he needed a little time to discuss it with his wife. Tom stated, “I’ll hold this offer open for 2 weeks if you give me $500.” Ed responded, “Great, let me write you a check for $500.” Ed wrote the check which Tom cashed the next day. 1 week later, Tom sold the house to his sister. Ed found out and sued Tom for breach of contract. Judgment would be for whom?

Judgment is for Ed. Tom and Ed entered into an option contract when they exchange promises for Tom to hold the offer to Ed open for two weeks in exchange for Ed’s promise to pay $500. Therefore, Tom breached the option contract when he sold the house just one week after forming the option contract with Ed.

IV.

CHAPTER 12- CONSIDERATION 1. Pre-existing legal obligations/Modifying a pre-existing legal obligation and new consideration 2. Past consideration and exception 3. Settlement of a Liquidated Debt and exceptions (posted on BB)

4. Settlement of an Unliquidated Debt and exceptions (posted on BB)

SAMPLE PROBLEM 1 Cameron, a building contractor, entered into a written agreement with Octavia, for a new addition on her house for $100,000. After the work was one-half complete, Cameron complained about the rising cost of materials and stopped work. Octavia said to Cameron: “If you go ahead and finish the job, I’ll pay you a bonus of $25,000.” Cameron agreed and finished the job. Cameron then demanded payment of $125,000, but Octavia refused to pay more than $100,000. (a) Can Cameron enforce the promise for the bonus claim? Explain.

No, Cameron cannot enforce this promise because he had a pre-existing obligation to build the new addition to the house for $100,000, not $125,000. There was no consideration exchanged when Cameron promised to do what he was already obligated to do for Octavia’s promise to give him the bonus of $25,000. (b) Assume that Cameron did complete building the new addition to Octavia’s house and Octavia responded by stating: “You did such an amazing job, so I’m going to give you a bonus of $25,000.” Can Cameron enforce this promise?

No, Cameron cannot enforce this promise because it is a past consideration promise which is no consideration at all. Octavia’s promise to give Cameron a bonus of $25,000 was in exchange for something Cameron had already done for her when he completed the new addition to the house. (c) Assume that Octavia had said to Cameron: “If you fix the pavement in front of my house as well as the new addition to the house, I’ll pay you an extra $25,000.” Cameron fixes the pavement in front of Octavia’s house as well as finishes the addition to her house. Can Cameron enforce the promise to pay the extra $25,000? Explain.

Yes, Cameron can enforce this promise because consideration was exchanged between Octavia and Cameron. Octavia promised to give Cameron the bonus $25,000 in exchange for Cameron fixing the pavement in front of the house. Cameron was not legally obligated to fix the pavement in front of the house. He was only contractually obligated to build the new addition to the house. SAMPLE PROBLEM 2

Steve and Michael entered into a written and signed contract under which Michael agreed to replace the roof on Steve’s house for a total price of $20,000. (a) Michael replaced the roof according to the terms of the contract. While Steve acknowledged that he owed Michael the full $20,000, he informed Michael that because he was short of cash he would be unable to pay the entire amount. Michael orally agreed to accept $15,000 in full satisfaction of the $20,000 that was owed to him if Steve would also give Michael his brand new large screen television. The television was worth $2500. Steve immediately paid Michael the $15,000 and gave him the television. Michael took the television, deposited the money and then sued Steve for the additional $2500 he claims is owed to him. Judgment for whom? Explain fully.

Judgment for Steve. This was a fully matured liquidated debt that was not disputed, Such a debt cannot be discharged by a lesser amount unless an exception applies. One such exception that applies here that discharges the debt is if the creditor (Michael) accepts a lesser sum of money and some other item from the debtor (Steve) in exchange for his promise to discharge the balance of the debt. In this case, when Michael agreed to accept the $15,000 and the television as full payment of the $20,000 debt, the debt was legally discharged. (b) Instead of the facts in (a), assume that a good faith dispute arose as to whether Michael had replaced the roof according to the terms of the contract. Michael claimed that the full $20,000 was due, but Steve claimed that he owed him only $15,000. After several weeks of argument, Steve sent a check to Michael for $17,500 with a note that said that he was making this payment as full payment owed on the contract and a notation on the check that said “in full payment of roofing contract.” Michael endorsed the check and, without making any further notations, deposited it. Michael then sued Steve for the remaining $2,500 he claims is due. Judgment for whom? Explain fully.

Judgment is for Steve. This was an unliquidated debt that was settled by an accord and satisfaction. An accord and satisfaction occurred when Michael endorsed and deposited Steve’s check in the lesser amount of $17,500 as full payment for the $20,000 debt (without writing “under protest” on the check as well to reserve his right to sue Steve later for the $2500 balance).

V.

CHAPTERS 13 – DEFENSES TO CONTRACT ENFORCEABILITY

LEGAL RULES 1. Statute of Fraud Rules a) Interests in Land provision (real estate provision)

b) 2 exceptions to interests in land provision- leases for one year or less and part performance exception. c) One Year Rule provision d) One Year Rule exception – possibility of contract performance. e) Collateral Promises provision f) 1 exception to Collateral Promise provision – “Main Purpose Rule” g) Sales of Goods $500 or more provision h) 2 exceptions to Sales of Goods provision (See Chapter 17, pp.410-411) – “Special Rules for Contracts between Merchants” (also known as the “Merchant Memo Rule”) and “Specially Manufactured Goods”. 2. Fraud a) Elements of fraud – what plaintiff must prove for cancellation of contract and/or damages ; statements of opinion vs. material facts. 3. Mistake – unilateral and bilateral (mutual) mistake (mistake of fact vs. mistake of fact) SAMPLE PROBLEM 1 On May 1, 2015, Simone accepted an offer for a job as a professor at Hunter College for the 2015-2016 academic semesters. Meeting that day in the office of Jasmine, the Assistant Vice- Dean for Hiring, she orally agreed that her employment would begin on August 1, 2015 and would finish on May 31, 2016 and that she would receive a salary of $90,000 for that period. When Simone asked Jasmine to confirm the agreement in writing, Jasmine refused, saying “No need. I am an honest person. You have my oral promise.” On May 15, 2015, Simone came back to New York to look for an apartment. She met with Nicholas, the landlord of a building on East 67 th Street and orally agreed to rent a studio apartment for $2000/month from him beginning on August 1, 2015 and ending on May 31, 2016. When Simone asked Nicholas to confirm the lease in writing, Nicholas also refused. On July 15, 2015, Simone received a phone call from Nicholas informing her that Nicholas would not honor the lease agreement they had reached. Also on July 15, 2015, Simone received a phone call from Jasmine informing her that Hunter College would not honor the oral agreement it had reached with her. (a) Simone sues Hunter College for breach of contract and Hunter College pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense. Judgment for whom? Explain.

Judgment is for Hunter College because under the Statute of Frauds, the oral employment contract should have been in writing under the One Year Rule. Any contract that cannot be completed within one year from the day it was made, based on the terms of the contract, must be in writing. This oral contract was made on May 1, 2015 which means that it had to be

completed by both parties by May 1, 2016. Based on the terms of the contract, this agreement would not be completed until May 31, 2016. (b) Would your answer to (a) be different if, on May 2, 2015, Simone had written and signed a thank you note to Jasmine that read, “Thanks for agreeing to hire me as a professor for $90,000/year. I look forward to working with you. (Signed) Simone.”? Explain.

No, the answer to (a) would not be different because the Statute of Frauds requires that the writing be signed by “the party against whom enforcement is sought”, In this case, that would mean that the writing and signature ( a typed name or initials also qualify as a signature) would have to be that from Jasmine as the agent of Hunter College. (c) Simone sues Nicholas for breach of contract because she still wants to rent the studio, and Nicholas pleads the Statute of Frauds as a defense. Judgment for whom? Explain.

Judgment is for Simone. While, in general, under the Statute of Frauds, real estate contracts must be in writing to be enforced in court, one exception is that leases for one year or less do not require a writing to be enforceable. This rental lease is for almost ten months (August 1, 2015 to May 31, 2015), therefore the oral rental agreement between Simone and Nicholas is enforceable and no writing is required.

SAMPLE PROBLEM 2 Explain whether each contract is within the Statute of Frauds and therefore may need a writing to be enforceable: (a) Steven and his brother Ned make an oral agreement for Steven to sublet Ned’s apartment for ten months.

This contract is not within the Statute of Frauds and no writing is required. Leases for one year or less do not require a writing to be enforced. (b) Kendra hires Ariana on May 1st, without a written contract, to work for her starting June 1st for fifteen months.

This contract is within the Statute of Frauds and a writing is required. Under the One Year Rule there is no way this contract would be completed within one year from May 1st.

(c) David orally promises a car dealership, on behalf of his daughter Amaya, that “If Amaya can’t make the car payments, I promise to make the payments.”

This contract is within the Statute of Frauds. This was a collateral promise which must be in writing. (d) Don and Tim, two wine merchants, make an oral contract for the sale of 20 cases of wine valued at $20,000. Don sends Tim a letter confirming the agreement. Tim receives the letter but ignores it. Three weeks after Tim received the letter, Don sends the 20 cases of wine, which Tim rejects.

This contract is not within the Statute of Frauds and no writing is required. An exception to the Statute of Frauds provision that contracts for the sale of goods $500 or more must be in writing applies here. In this case, there was an oral contract between two merchants valued at $20,000 and one merchant sent a confirmation letter to the other mercha...