Jentz 11e-AM-Ch13 - CHAPTER 13 CAPACITY AND LEGALITY ANSWER...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 12 pages.

C HAPTER 13 C APACITY AND L EGALITY A NSWER TO C RITICAL A NALYSIS Q UESTION IN THE F EATURE C ONTEMPORARY L EGAL D EBATES —W HERE D O Y OU S TAND ? (P AGE 253) Determining what is and what is not gambling does not always lend itself to an easy answer. If you buy a mutual fund that consists of a broad array of stocks and your purpose is to enhance your standard of living during your retirement, no one considers that gambling. In contrast, if you are a day trader—buying and selling stocks during a one-day period—you are clearly “betting” that the stocks you buy in the morning and then sell in the evening will have gone up in value. Should day trading be deemed gambling and therefore illegal? Where do you draw the line between what is and what is not gambling in our society? According to the text, gambling is any scheme that  involves a distribution of property by chance among persons who have paid a valuable  consideration for the opportunity (chance) to receive the property. Gambling is the creation  of risk for the purpose of assuming it. Stock trading does not fit this definition—it is not a  distribution of property by chance, at least not in theory, nor is it the creation of risk for the  purpose of assuming it. It should be deemed illegal due to its possible negative effect on  investors’ funds and its potential addictive nature. It should not be deemed illegal due to  that course’s possible inhibiting effect on investment. The line between what is and what is  not legal gambling in our society should likely be drawn where the ill effects (addiction,  crime, etc.) outweigh the benefits (state revenues, entertainment, etc.). A NSWERS TO Q UESTIONS AT THE E NDS OF THE C ASES C ASE 13.1—(P AGE 247) W HAT I F THE F ACTS W ERE D IFFERENT ? What might have happened in future cases if the court had held that there was no implied-in-law contract between Fountain and Yale Diagnostic Radiology? The court stated that “[t]he present  case illustrates the inequity that would arise if no implied in law contract arose between  99
100          UNIT THREE:  CONTRACTS AND E-CONTRACTS Fountain and the plaintiff. Fountain was shot in the head at close range and required  emergency medical care. Under such circumstances, a medical services provider cannot stop  to consider how the bills will be paid or by whom.” This indicates that had the court held  otherwise, a medical service provider in a future case might have waited to render aid until  it could be determined who would pay the bill, which of course might be a fatal delay. T HE E THICAL D IMENSION

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture