We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

No, George cannot be held liable for the damage to Jenna’s car. Most likely, Jenna would try and argue that George had a duty of care owed to her under the theory of bailment. However, this argument would be flawed because George and Jenna’s bailment relationship expired when Jenna paid for the George’s services and George returned Jenna’s car. Although in George’s parking lot, Jenna had sole possession of her car. In addition, Carolyn who caused the accident was in sole possession of her car as well. The accident was not the result of any action or inaction on the part of George or George’s employees.


As a side note, Jenna could not argue under the theory of contracts either. No contract existed between the parties with respect to these circumstances. The elements necessary to form a contract are lacking. 2. No. George cannot be held criminally liable for Edgar’s theft unless George was purposely directing his employee to steal on his behalf. George fails to possess the “mens rea”, or purposeful intent, which is required for someone to be held criminally liable. However, George can be held liable in a civil action. A mutual benefit bailment occurred when George, or one of his 20 employees, took possession of Molly’s car.

George’s business became a bailee and owed a duty of care to Molly to 1) to take reasonable care of her care and the contents of her car; 2) use her car only to perform the services related to changing the car’s oil; and 3) when done performing such services, return the car to Molly. Edgar, an employee of George, was found to have stolen Molly’s money while her car was in George’s care and thus, this action by Edgar breached a duty of care to Molly. In general, a bailee is liable for any loss or damage to property due to breach of care.

Furthermore, George is liable because at the end of the bailment Molly’s car was not delivered in the same condition as she left it. Her car and its contents were not returned to her in the condition in which she left them with George’s business. As a side note, it should be noted that George is vicariously liable for the actions of his employees when they are acting within the confines of their employment. Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior, which means responsibility of the superior one for the acts of his or her subordinates.

Employers are liable for the acts of their employees and therefore, George would be liable for Edgar’s actions since Edgar stole the money while working for George’s business. 3. No, Monique has not committed an interference tort, also known as tortious interference, against George and his business. Monique did not directly target George’s business in any ill manner and did not directly through action or words drive George’s customers away. An interference tort is a common law tort that involves a person intentionally damaging another’s contractual or business relationship with another.

Divided into two categories, interference tort deals with one’s specific contractual relationship irrespective of whether a business is involved or one’s specific business relationships irrespective of whether contract exists. Tortious interference with respect to a contractual relationship occurs when a tortfeasor convinces a party to breach its contract with a third party. Or, the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his or her contractual obligations. Tortious interference with respect to business relationships occurs when a tortfeasor prevents one from establishing or maintaining business relationships.

An example is a party threatening bodily harm to potential clients or customer is they elect to use the services of a certain business. Based on the given hypothetical, George would be trying to argue that his business relationships were damaged due to tortious interference. However, Monique’s behavior was healthy competition and does not amount to an interference tort. Based upon the hypothetical, she did not use false claims or accusations against George’s business or his personal reputation in order to drive business away from him.

She simply said she would beat any competitor’s price, which is a common business tactic used in almost every industry. Furthermore, the basic elements of tortious interference do not exist in this case. Although George can argue that beneficial relationships existed between him and his customers, Monique did not have specific knowledge of all of his beneficial relationships, nor was there the intent on her part to specifically induce customers to breach their beneficial relationships with George. Monique said she would beat any competitor’s price, not that she would just beat George’s prices.

If George was allowed to successfully bring a claim against Monique, then this would change the landscape of competition in business by making a business liable to all of its competitors that suffer a loss due to the business’s successful marketing campaign. 4. Yes, George can be held liable for Cindy’s injuries through workers’ compensation. Also known as workers’ comp, this form of insurance provides compensation for medical care an employee received due to injuries received during the course of employment. Unless falling under an exception, the law requires all businesses to carry workers’ compensation for their employees.

Since Cindy was performing a duty per her employment, she is covered the injuries that she suffered in the accident. One may argue that Cindy should not be covered since she had stopped for lunch at Wendy’s. However, Cindy was on her way back to work when the accident occurred and therefore, should be considered back on the clock. 5. No, George cannot be liable for Joe’s injuries. In order for George to be liable to Joe for the injuries that Joe suffered, he would have had to owe Joe a duty of care or been in a position to control the actions of the taxi cab driver.

Since he did not owe Joe a duty of care and was not in a position to control the actions of the taxi cab driver, then he cannot be liable for Joe’s injuries. It is scary to think that the law would hold passengers in a taxi cab liable for the accidents of the taxi cab driver. No one would ever take a taxi cab for fear there may be an accident. As a side note, there are some instances outside of this hypothetical that may make George liable for Joe’s injuries. If Joe is able to prove contributory negligence on the part of George, then he may be able to hold George liable for Joe’s injuries.

6. No. Commonly known as slip in fall cases, these personal injury torts are based on the theory that property owners are negligent in allowing dangerous conditions to exist on their property. However, there are two defenses to public liability claims, such as the one set forth in the hypothetical. The first is that the property owner was not negligent. In the hypothetical, Janet slipped and fell before George had a reasonable amount of time to clean up the spilled Pepsi. He had seen Bert knock the bottle and was going to clean up the spill right before Janet walked in.

George was exercising the necessary due diligence of a typical store owner, but just didn’t have enough time to mitigate any potential risks. Although not applicable in this case based upon the given hypothetical, the other defense is that the injured patron was at fault. The first defense is that they were not negligent. For example, the George could argue that any reasonable patron, exercising due diligence for his or her own safety, would have seen the spilt Pepsi and taken the necessary action to avoid the spill. 7a. Yes, George breached the bilateral contract he had with Marcus.

George paid money to Marcus in return for supplies. In a bilateral contract, if either party breaks their promise, then such breaching party may be held liable if there are any losses due to the breach. In this case, George’s breach has caused Marcus a $15,000 loss. Since Marcus delivered the supplies to George, he is entitled to the $15,000. Under common law, Marcus may also sue George has been unjustly enriched by receiving Marcus’s supplies without paying for them. Should Marcus when under this claim, George would be required to make restitution, which would be paying the monies owed to Marcus.

b. Yes, Marcus has committed two torts against George. By contacting George’s employers, parents and business partners, Marcus committed the tort of defamation. Defamation is the communication of a factual or implied to be factual statement that may give a party a negative image. Marcus also committed the tort of nuisance. By calling George every day and sometimes in the middle of the night may be deemed a nuisance tort, which is an activity or condition that is harmful or annoying to others. 8. Yes, Ace is liable under a products liability claim.

Products liability holds manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and retailer liable for injuries that result from the defective products they make available to the public. Most products liability claims arise upon the event of an injury. Thus, the statute of limitations is triggered by an injury. 9a. Both. The contract falls under common law and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). To be considered a contract under common law, a contract must 1) have an agreement (an offer and acceptance); 2) capacity to contract; 3) consideration; 4) legal purpose; 5) legality to form; 6) intention to create a legal relationship and 7) there is consent.

Based on the facts, it can be assumed there was an agreement to contract due to the written document. It will be assumed for the purposes of the exam that the parties had capacity. The consideration for the contract was $8000. Evidence of the written document supports that the contract had legal purpose, there was an intention to create a legal relationship and there was consent. Although the Statute of Frauds does not specifically require renovation contracts to be in writing, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) does require it.

The Statute of Frauds generally requires the following contracts be in writing: contracts in consideration of marriage; contracts that cannot be performed with 1 year; contracts entered into by an executor of a will to pay the debt of estate with his own funds; contracts where one becomes the guarantor for another’s debt; and contracts for goods above a certain amount. The UCC determines the certain amount. Currently, the UCC requires contracts for the sale of goods for $500. 00 or more must be in writing. Since George is paying Rick for the materials their contract falls under the UCC.

If contract was just for labor, then the contract would not be subject to the UCC. b. As stated in 9a, the contract is required to be writing due to the UCC’s that contracts of sale of goods for $500 or more must be in writing. George’s purchase of materials in the amount of $3000 necessitates the written contract requirement. c. No, generally once a contract is signed, one cannot cancel it. There are instances wherein consumers can cancel a contract within 3 days of signing it, but none of those contracts are present in this hypothetical. Rick may argue that he thought from George’s actions that George was repudiating the contract.

However, under the circumstances, a court is not likely to find that the facts support such a conclusion. George has already paid Rick $4000 and Rick needs to perform his obligations under the contract or return the $4,000. Rick may also be liable to George for any damages his repudiation may cause. d. Yes, provided Rick has not position himself in such a manner upon reliance of the contract. Should Rick in reliance of the contract and such a repudiation of the contract on the part of George, then the George may be liable for any damage his repudiation would cause.

For example, Rick buys $6000 of materials to perform George’s work and the materials are specifically unique to George’s requirements and not transferable to another project. A court may hold George liable for the materials. e. No. Generally, the law provides that persons who may consume a significant amount of intoxicants or drugs that reduce their ability to understand exactly what they are doing do not excuse them from actions taken when intoxicated since such conditions were self-induced. Very few states permit repudiation of agreements once one sobers, but the conditions for exercising this right is extremely strict.

Maybe if George is located in one of these generous states, we will be able to repudiate the contract, but it may still be an extremely hard task to accomplish. f. Generally, the right to disaffirm is reserved to the minor. A minor can cancel a contract made, no matter the case. The entire contract, however, must be disaffirmed and done in a timely manner. g. No. Pursuant to Article 2 of the UCC, provided Rick follows through on his proposed action, then George cannot cancel the contract. Under the circumstances, Rick proposed a reasonable solution that could remedy the problem within a reasonable amount of time.

10. Yes. Sears expressly advertised that the paint required only one coat to cover. Assuming there was no fine print, Sears made an express warranty. An express warranty is a guarantee by the seller of a product that the quality or performance of the product can be assured. Since the hypothetical did not state whether Sears considered their ad as a warranty and gave conditions under which the product could be returned, replaced or repaired, some may argue the warranty was implied versus expressed.

An implied warranty arises from the distinct nature of the transaction. It is an inherent understanding by the buyer that the product can do what the seller states it can do. In any event, there was a breach of warranty by Sears. There is a breach of warranty when a promise is broken and the goods are not as they were promised. In these instances the seller should honor the warranty and offer the buyer a timely refund, replacement and repair. Since in this situation a repair or replacement cannot correct the situation, then Sears should offer George a refund.

Share this Post!

Send a Comment

Your email address will not be published.