problem 8 B - 3. Based upon the Florida Panthers case the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Obadele Brown November 26, 2007 Law and Society Problem 8-B 1. We can make an argument that Estelle should be awarded the prize  because she was going to make the hole in one but it was interfered by a  frog. She did join the tournament knowing that there could be neutral  interference or any interference. 2. The golf club will raise arguments about it being a natural interference that  they did not know of. It could have gone either way; the frog could have  knocked the ball in. They can also go back to the contract which says the  ball must go in the hole and in this case the ball didn’t go in the hole.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 3. Based upon the Florida Panthers case the golf club should win because both contracts said the ball/puck must enter the hole entirely. And in both cases this did not happen. They also reserved a judge to make a decision on any discrepancy. The judges decision is final unless the judge uses fraud, intentional or gross mistake, or lack of good faith. Since the ball/puck didnt go in the hole the judge had an easy decision. Estelle should not win the contest....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/18/2008 for the course LAW SBA 1001 taught by Professor Hodge during the Spring '08 term at Temple.

Page1 / 2

problem 8 B - 3. Based upon the Florida Panthers case the...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online