Business Law Case, need fresh point of view

Курсы, колледжи, университеты.
User avatar
germiona
Уже с Приветом
Posts: 486
Joined: 24 Feb 2003 15:41
Location: USA

Business Law Case, need fresh point of view

Post by germiona »

Hello
I have to answer this case. Because it was retyped from horrible handwriting it might look strange). I was thinking about it and here are key points of my answer:

1. D.D. might be reliable for teasing dog (tort?)
2. Tess words about giving anything she owns did not form a contract because she did not have intent (?)
3.Wessmeller formed implied-in-fact contract with Tess(?)
4.Martha dos not have legal liabilities because she revoked her offer ( too late? because dozen volunteers already started to perform).
5. Johnny entitled to reward based on the contract with Tess
6. 12 people responsible for (accidental?) killing of Johnny. ( Criminal law, but also tort) Relatives of Johnny can sue 12 people for killing Johnny ( as a part of tort, not criminal law ( state/fed responsibility).
7. Because Johnny is dead, Tess does not have to pay reward to him ( what about third party beneficiaries? what if Johnny had a will saying "if I ever save a dog and get a reward and die, my favorite cat is entitled to receive this reward." ?
8. Sprinter is responsible for killing dog(?)
9. Bus driver is responsible for killing sprinter and dog (?)
10. Did Johnny or sprinter save the dog from the water? Johnny got the dog only to the shore...Sprinter got it to the grounds and accidentally kill it (?)
11.........

Text
Tess True heart a native new Yorker and D.D Magee of Alaska, together with Tess’s puppy, Beau. They all arrived at the observatory platform above the falls they, together with a wedding party arrived there ahead of the ceremony on their way to the site of the honeymoon suite and reception ballroom. As Tess, D.D and Beau looked over the railing of the platform, D.D pulled a favorite dog biscuit from his pocket and after showing it to Beau he threw it over the railing to the troubled waters below. With a sudden leap Beau left the arms of Tess and followed the biscuit over the railing. Panic stricken, Tess immediately screamed for some one to save her dog. Saying, “I’ll give everything I own to someone who saves my dog”. Johnny Wessmeller, heard her cries for help and dived over the side in an attempt to save the dog. Martha Stewart, a member of the wedding party saw and heard the proceedings and exclaimed “I’ll pay a million dollars to the person who successfully returns Beau to Tess’s loving arms. Everyone within hearing range exclaimed, “Really”? Martha replied, “Yes, I’m rich and can afford it.” Then she whispered to her companion “besides, I think I can deduct it from my fine and community service obligation”
Immediately a dozen volunteers dived from the platform to the waiting troubled waters. Martha’s attorney worked his way to her side and whispered in her ear, “you’re mistaken, there won’t be a reduction to the courts sentencing, she then exclaimed “I’ve changed my mind there is no reward”.
Johnny W, having had a head starts and because of his skill reaches the dog first and pushes it ashore where he gives it mouth to mouth resuscitation, reviving Beau. But before he can place himself on shore he is pushed under the water by the dozen people and drowns.
Next one of the dozen emerges from the crowd grabs the dog and sprints up he hill, though the parking lot, where he and the dog are both killed by a tour bus driver.
The blank of both the sprinter and Johnny claim the rewards. What are the issue/s facing Tess, D.D., Martha and the blank and what the possible and probable results are
DanielMa
Уже с Приветом
Posts: 10188
Joined: 12 Aug 2002 16:13
Location: NYC

Post by DanielMa »

Let's start one by one:

Issues Facing Tess:
Was there a contract? Did she make an offer? And did Johny accept it? Under common law, he exclamation might not be an offer because it lacks a price/quantity (I am not sure about this, you need to find out what is required for the contract under common law). Did Johny accept it? He didn't save the dog after all.

Issues facing D.D.
What did he do wrong? And to what extent do we hold him liable? Do we hold him liable for the deaths of the dog, Johny, and the other guy? There were a lot of intervening factors that contributed to all the deaths.

Issues facing Martha.
He offer was sufficient to form a contract. They started to perform. Could she revoke her offer after they began performance? assuming that there was a contract and she didn't revoke it, was it completed when the dog was out of the water?

Issues facing the Blank
Who are the blank? Heirs? Can they actually get the benefits of a contract?
User avatar
nazar
Уже с Приветом
Posts: 561
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 05:18
Location: Lvov, Ukraine - Chicago, IL

Post by nazar »

Looks like one of the law school exams. I am so happy that I am almosy done with my school. just 15 credits and I'm out )))


1. You can infer “intent” from DD’s acts. What is Beau? Tess’s property? If yes, some kind of intentional tort may work here.
2. I think, Tess’s words are not definite enough to form a valid contract. UCC does not apply to this K, thus, price/reward is essential element of this K. No price – no K, at least in common law.
3. No. To form K, you need valid offer. Without offer, there is nothing to accept.
4. The issue here, whether Martha’s offer to public is “revocable” or “irrevocable.”
You cannot revoke irrevocable offer. Once it is made and promisee started performing, he must be given a reasonable time to finish performance. I don’t remember exact rule, but offer may become irrevocable when (1) consideration is paid (option K), (2) offeree wants performance ONLY, not a return promise (I believe it is covered in Restatement 50, not sure), and (3) …… (I don’t remember). No. 2 will be at issue here. You may argue both ways. If you decide that it Martha’s offer was irrevocable – K was formed.
5. Johnny dead ))))) His estate may get $$$.
6. Wrongful death/survival statute will apply here. Johnny’s relatives may sue all those people for negligent wrongful killing, plus his estate might sue under survival statute. I don’t know about criminal liability….. Hate criminal law.
7. I don’t know anything about privity of Ks.
8. Needs more facts. I think no.
9. Yes )))) He is perfectly liable, plus is perfect defendant for Personal Injury lawyer. Under Respondet Superior, his employer will be liable, too.
10. What was the terms of the K? My undestanding- (1) alive dog, (2) in Tess’s arms. Nothing was performed. It is not divisible K.
User avatar
nazar
Уже с Приветом
Posts: 561
Joined: 14 Jan 2005 05:18
Location: Lvov, Ukraine - Chicago, IL

Post by nazar »

Sorry for mistakes .... I should have read it before posting. My English sucks,too.

Return to “Образование”