Quiz 2 - Law 3800 T. Edmonds 2nd Quiz Spring 2009 This is a...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
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
Background image of page 3

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Law 3800 T. Edmonds 2nd Quiz Spring 2009 This is a closed book exercise. Record your answers on the Scantron furnished you. To receive credit, you must complete the correct Form Letter and Number on your scantron. Questions 1 and 2 are based upon these facts. Nancy reports Ted, a co-worker to her boss for stealing company property. Ted has been setting brand new merchandize outside the back door of the store where they work, and then picking it up on his way home. Nancy’s boss sets up a surveillance camera and catches Ted red handed. He fires Ted on the spot. Ted finds out that Nancy turned him in, so he waits for her in the store parking lot. When she comes out, he sneaks up behind her and strikes her with a board. She is physically injured. 1. Ted can be charged with the crimejsl of: a. Assault 2. Ted is charged with criminal conduct for striking Nancy. He is pending trial in a criminal court. Can Nancy sue Ted for her injuries? C. ~7—'-.—‘—1“‘ . -n '5. 1:“. c v v 1-".— L " d. Yes. Nancy can sue Ted for the tort e. W Questions3 and 4 are based upon these facts. Fatso Lindberger is a talk radio host. To say he is a conservative would be a gross understatement. One day on his talk show (which has a very large listening audience) Fatso decides to go on a rant against Joe Nice Guy, a wealthy business owner who contributes money to private foundations that F atso considers “liberal”. A foundation that works to help those infected with HIV/AIDS is one of Nice Guy’s favorite charities. F atso tells his listening audience that the only reason Joe Nice Guy donates money to help those infected with HIV/AIDS is because Joe Nice Guy is himself, infected with HIV/AIDS due to his illicit sex life. The allegation is false. 3. Can Joe Nice Guy sue F atso Lindberger, and if so for what tort? W1 a b c Lindberger defends his actions, pointing out that he was only repeating what had already been published in a reputable, conservative newspaper. 4. Has Lindberger raised a valid defense to Joe’s tort suit? Question 5 is based upon the following facts. Bobby Joe, a unhappy English major who can’t find a job with his degree, goes back to his university and climbs up in the campus bell tower with a gun and a box of ammunition. Bobby Joe starts shooting at faculty and students. F ortunately for all, Bobby Joe is a terrible shot. The police respond and subdue Bobby Joe; he is arrested. He admits shooting at student wearing a hoody that said “Dazed and Confused” on the back; he tells the police that he fired the shots at the student as the clock in the bell tower chimed high noon. When you read these facts in the student paper days later, you realize that the student was y_o_u_! You are immediately shocked and traumatized so severely you have to be treated at the health center for stress. 5. Can you sue Bobby Joe? a ‘11- . _.;ZZ‘:=_I::‘;:: ,, _, b. 0. Questions 6 and 7 are based upon these facts. The Coles bought a used car from a dealership owned by Quirk. The dealer agreed to thoroughly clean the interior before delivery. Dissatisfied with the car’s appearance, Timothy Cole began to clean the car’s interior. As he reached into the pocket behind the driver’s seat, a pair of surgical tweezers cut his finger drawing blood. Cole feverishly washed his hands and phoned his doctor, who told him he was at risk of contracting Hepatitis B and HIV. The Coles found prescriptions in the car and learned that its former owner was a doctor. Terrified that Timothy might have contracted Hepatitis B or HIV, the Coles abstained from sex for over a year, and then practiced safe sex. Cole suffered from diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting based upon this fear of HIV. He never tested positive for the disease. The tweezers were never tested. 6. The Coles Sued Quirk. The trial judge directed a verdict for Quirk. The Coles appealed. How did the Appeals Court rule and why? a. For the Coles, ordering the matter to trial on the issue of how much to award the Coles. g at ann ufeng e va 1 injunes i this case for which a jury could award damages. (1. None of the above. 7. The Cole vs. Quirk case described above involved a discussion of two possible standards, one objective and one subjective. Which one of the following is a true statement about the Appeals Court’s decision? a. The Appeals Court adopted the “Actual Exposure” test; a subjective test based upon actual fact. b. The Appeals Court adopted the “Reasonable Fear” test; a subjective test based upon reasonable fear even in the absence of a proven source for the fear. @ The Appeals Court adopted the “Actual Exposure” test; an objective test based upon actual fact. d. The Appeals Court adopted the “Reasonable Fear” test; an objective test based upon reasonable fear even in the absence of a proven source for the fear. Question 8 is based upon the following facts. In December of 1983, Pennzoil made a bid to buy 20% of Getty Oil at $100 a share. After negotiations, Pennzoil raised its price to $112.50 a share, and the Getty Board of Directors approved the sale. Before the paperwork could be completed, but after public announcement of the deal, along came Texaco Oil Company who made Getty shareholders and offer of $128 a share. The Getty folks went for the Texaco deal and left Pennzoil in the lurch. Pennzoil sued Texaco. 8. What was Pennzoil’s claim against Texaco? a. That Texaco had committed the intentional tort of interference with a prospective advantage. _ (9 That Texaco had committed the intentional tort of tortuous interference with a contractual relationship. c. That Texaco had committed the negligent tort of accidentally enticing away a customer. d. None of the above. Questions 9 and 10 are based upon the following facts. Ms. Palsgraf was waiting on a subway platform with her son. As a train began to leave the station, a man carrying a package ran to catch it. Two railroad employees attempted to pull and push the passenger onto the train. The passenger dropped his package, which contained illegal explosives and when the package hit the rails, it exploded. The force of the explosion knocked over some scales at the end of the platform where Palsgraf was standing, injuring her son. Palsgraf sued on behalf of her injured son. Palsgraf V The Long Island Railroad Co, 248 NY. 339 (1928) 9. Was the railroad held liable for the injuries to Ms. Palsgraf’s child and why or why not? a. No. Judge Cardozo ruled that the railroad employees were not negligent in the way they handled the man with the package. b. Yes. Judge Cardozo ruled that “but for” the railroad employees’ negligence, Plasgraf‘s child would not have been hurt. © No, Judge Cardozo ruled that although the railroad employees were negligent, the harm suffered by the Palsgraf child was not a foreseeable harm that would flow from the type of negligence the railroad employees engaged in. (I. Yes, Judge Cardozo ruled that running a railroad was an ultrahazzardous activity. 10. In Palsgraf, Judge Cardozo established the two part test for causation in negligent tort that we use today. The test is best described by which of the following? a. A subjective test that turns on actual fact, and is called “causation in fact”, and an objective test called foreseeable harm, that takes into account whether it was foreseeable to the negligent party that this type of injury might result from their particular negligent conduct. ® An objective test that turns on actual fact, and is called “causation in fact”, and a subjective test called foreseeable harm, that takes into account whether it was foreseeable to the negligent party that this type of injury might result from their particular negligent conduct. c. Simple negligence and gross negligence. d. Intentional negligence versus accidental negligence. Questions 1 1 — 13 are based upon the following facts. Juan Anatoo, a famous bandleader, lives in a restored mansion on Westnedge Hill. His house sits on the corner of two residential streets. There are paved sidewalks on both sides of Juan’s front lawn. The City of Erehwon (in which Jan’s house is located) has a city ordinance (a law) which require homeowners to keep the sidewalks in front of there residences free from snow and ice during winter months. A severe blizzard strikes Erehwon in January. It snows continuously and heavily for two days. Late at night during the first day of heavy snow, a drunken party goer named Donatella Nobody wanders down Juan’s sidewalk, and being none too steady on her feet, slips on the snow and ice on the sidewalk and is injured. 11. Donatella wants to sue Juan for her injuries. She knows you have had a law course and asks your advice. You tell her that there may be problems with here case, but that the legal theory under which she might sue is known as: a. -W b. © Negligence per se aw 12. You tell Donatella that the theory that you suggested she sue under will establish a duty on the part of Juan, but that another necessary element of a negligent tort may be missing. That element is: Erika-1y— 13. You tell Donatella that her case is further complicated by the fact that Juan may be able to assert a valid, affirmative defense to her claim of tort. The affirmative defense is: am brewer-Hammer 6 Comparative Negligence aw Questions 14 and 15 are based upon the following facts. Boyd, Dewey, Cheatum and Howe, Inc. (Boyd — Dewey) manufactures electric can openers for sale to ordinary consumers for in home use. Sara N. Dipity buys one of their can openers directly from a Boyd, Dewey, Cheatum and Howe retail outlet. Sara takes her new can opener home and plugs it into an electrical outlet in her kitchen. She notices that the can opener has no instruction booklet, or labels on the can opener itself. Sara attempts to open a can of tuna. Her sleeve gets tangled in the can opener mechanism, and as a result she is physically injured, and has to have stitches at the hospital. Sara wants to sue Boyd - Dewey. She asks for your advice. 14. You tell Sara that she has the following options with regard to her proposed lawsuit: a. She may sue for a breach of an implied warranty of merchantability. b. She may sue under a theory of tort if she can show that Boyd — Dewey was negligent in the manufacture or design of the can opener, but only if she can prove all the elements of a negligent tort. c. She may sue Boyd — Dewey in tort based upon strict liability for a design and/or warning defect. @ Both a and b. 6. Both a and c. Sara sues Boyd — Dewey. Boyd — Dewey is able to prove that there was a statement on the box the can opener came in that limited Boyd — Dewey’s liability for breach of contract to repair or replacement of the can opener, and disclaimed and liability for consequential damages arising from the use of the can opener, Sara admits that in her haste to try out the can opener, she failed to read the statement on the box even thought it was in big, bold type. Boyd — Dewey asks the court to grant a summary judgment motion as to Sara’s claim for her injuries based upon breach of contract, dismissing that part of her lawsuit because shrink wrap agreements are enforceable under contract law. 15. How should the court rule and why? Deny the motion because any attempt to disclaim consequential damages arising out of personal injury based upon these facts, would be unconscionable under the UCC. b. Grant the motion; shrink wrap agreements are unenforceable; Sara should have read the box. Questions 16 — 20 are based upon the following facts. Royal Payne-Deass makes a huge fortune selling gopher food futures to unsuspecting investors. Royal decides to purchase a Mc Mansion on a local lake (in Michigan) with some of his new found wealth. Royal is married to Stella Payne-Deass. Royal and Stella go to the closing for the sale and purchase of their new home. 16. What type of written conveyance (the document that transfers title to the property to Royal and Stella) should Royal and Stella insist that the seller provide them? a. A special warranty deed. b. A quit — claim deed. @l Awairantydced. d. An abstract Of title. The closing is complete and Royal and Stella are the new owners of the lake home. 17. What type of concurrent estate do Royal and Stella now share in the property? b. A tnan ommon. c. A joint tenancy. d. A future interest. The morning after Royal and Stella move into their new mansion, they awake to find a farmer driving a herd of dairy cows across the far side of their immaculate lawn to the lake so the cows can drink. Royal confronts the farmer and asks him what the _ the farmer thinks he is doing on Royal’s property. The farmer calmly tells Royal that when he sold the lake lot that Royal’s mansion is built on, he reserved in the deed the right to water his cattle from the lake by crossing Royal’s lot. Royal goes in the house and finds a copy of the deed he just got to his home. The deed contains the following statement at the end of the legal description of the property: “Buyer(s) take subject to all easements of record.” Royal call you and asks you to “get some kind of court order barring this farmer from driving his cattle across Royal’s lawn.” 18. Based upon your study of property law in Law 3800, you tell Royal: a. That Royal can get an injunction; the farmer is a trespasser. b. That the farmer has an easement by prescription, and may legally water his cattle on Royal’s property. c. That the farmer has an easement by necessity, and may legally water his cattle on Royal’s property. (9. That the farmer has an easement by reservation, and may legally water his cattle on Royal’s property. The Michigan Attorney General has been investigating Royal. The Attorney General determines that Royal’s investment scheme is illegal and he has made his fortune by defrauding innocent investors. The Attorney General fithher determines that Stella knew nothing of the fraud and was not involved. The Attorney General successfillly prosecutes Royal and Royal is convicted of 21 counts of felony fraud. The victims sue Royal and get a judgment from the court ordering Royal’s assets seized and sold to pay the victims. 19. What does Michigan law say about the mansion? a. It is fair game for Royal’s creditors; it was bought with proceeds from Royals scam. (5‘. Stella may legally object to the seizure and sale of the mansion. The stress of the criminal prosecution and a looming prison sentence are too much for Royal’s heart. He has a heart attack and dies before sentencing. Royal’s children by a previous marriage appear with a will signed by Royal and leaving his entire estate to them. 20. what happens to Royal’s share of the mansion (assuming the creditors haven’t gotten to it yet)? a Stella has full right of survivorship. b. The children can enforce the will; they now have the right to force the partition of the property. 0. Both of the above. d. None of the above. Question 21 is based upon the following facts. Robert, President, owner and CEO of C. F. Eye Care, a chain of optical shops, determines that his firm need a new machine that will prepare blended bifocal lenses for customer’s glasses. He contacts his sales person Ralph from Acme Manufacturing, a company specializing in machines used to produce lenses for glasses. He tells Ralph (who also happens to be the owner of Acme) that he wants to purchase a machine that can make the new and popular blended bifocal glasses. He also tells Ralph that he, Robert, has no knowledge or expertise when it comes to such machines and is relying on Ralph to sell him the correct machine. Ralph recommends a machine called a Model 23, and Robert purchase it. The written agreement for the sale of the machine contains only the following statement with regard to warranties: “Seller and buyer agree that seller’s only warranty under this agreement shall be to repair or replace the Model 23 should it fail to perform to manufacturer’s specifications.” The machine is delivered, and shortly after it is put into service, Robert is informed by his technician that a Model 23 doesn’t have the capacity to make blended bifocal lenses, only traditional bifocal lenses. Ralph refuses to upgrade or replace the machine, saying his only warranty was to replace the machine if it failed to meet Acme’s specifications which didn’t include blended bifocals. Ralph adds insult to injury by telling Robert the should have read the technical specifications for the machine available on Acme’s website. C. F. Eye Care sues Acme. 21. did Ralph and Acme make any warranty beyond what was in the agreement that C.F. Eye Care can now seek to enforce? a. Yes, a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose under UCC 2 — 214. b. No, the agreement is clear. p c. iYé’s'ia: of fitness for a particular purposéi‘tihder‘ UCC 2 ~‘— 3 I d. No, warranties must be expressed to be enforceable. e. Both b and d. Question 22 is based upon the following facts. Marie runs a lawn care and landscape supply company called Lawn Order. A salesperson for a wholesale landscape supply company (supply company) calls upon Marie and tells her about a hot new product; a landscape mulch made from recycled car tires. The sales person gives Marie a sample of the mulch in a clear plastic case. Marie is impressed with the product and orders 3 tons of the mulch in bulk. The contract for the sale of the mulch doesn’t mention any warranties. When the mulch is delivered, it looks nothing like the sample. It has big chunks of old tires and scrap steel from the steel belts in the tires; no one would want to use it for landscape purposes. When Marie complains bitterly to supply company, she is told “the contract was for ground up tires, and that is what ground up tires look like.” Marie calls you and asks you if she has any basis to sue supply company. 22. what should you tell Marie? Yes, supply company has breached several warranties. Yes, supply company has breached an express warranty. Yes, supply company has breached an implied warranty. All of the above. None of the Above. 09.0w» Questions 23 — are based upon the following facts. The brothers of Sigma Phi Nothing, a social fraternity at Whatsa Matta U. Decide to raise money for a spring break trip to Bacchanalia Mexico. They decide to host a party at the frat house. The party will be open to anyone 21 years old or older, and will be advertized by word of mouth on campus. The party will be a pig roast, and admission will be $8 a person. In order to enhanced the draw, a local band will provide music and the fraternity will furnish free beer. Whatsa Matta U. is located in Michigan. 23. Under these facts, what is the legal status of the Sigma Phi Nothing fraternity? It is a “social host”. It is “selling” beer. It has potential liability under Michigan’s Dram Shop law. Both b and c. All of the above. EDP-99"?” Joe Bagorags pays his $8 and commences to drink until he is obviously and sloppy drunk. The frat brothers make no effort to “cut him off ’ or otherwise respond to his actions. Joe leaves the party, drives his car, causes an accident and seriously injures Father Flanagan, the priest at the campus parish. 24. Under Michigan law, whom may Father Flanagan sue? a. Joe Bagorags. b. The Fraternity. c. The members and officers of the fraternity. d. All of the above. 6. None of the above. 25. Dram shop laws most closely approximate which of the following theories of liability in tort? Negli gent Tort. c. Traditional ultra hazardous activity. d. Assumption of the risk. Answers: 24. d 25. a ‘omflg‘P‘PP’Nf‘ _. N QQOWUQNONQOUOUOUOUUWQQO ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/27/2010 for the course LAW 3800 taught by Professor Edmonds during the Spring '07 term at Western Michigan.

Page1 / 10

Quiz 2 - Law 3800 T. Edmonds 2nd Quiz Spring 2009 This is a...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

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