did not engage in further negotiations and when the document was signed Sean was aware of the mistakeand Chad was not, the court can rectify the contract. Because Sean did not show any sign of cooperation,Chad decided to send him 100 units which match the price that Sean agreed.Later that night, there was also an email from Sean demanding for the additional 900 units. Craig andSophie are not responsible for providing the addition 900 units. There was an innocent mistake in thecontract, and Craig put effort to solve the problem but did not get any cooperation from Sean.
Issue with Katie and CraigIn the meantime, Katie decides to try her DoggyCruiser bought from Maria Rodriquez and makeher 40 pounds’ dog named Bertrand fit into the dog carrier. On her way to Craig’s house, Katie didn’t faceany mishap with the product indicating she was satisfied with the product. Upon reaching Craig’s houseKatie convinced him to go for a ride through the forest, which belongs to a farmer named Jim Kennedy.Jim frequently allows Craig and others to cycle and hike through his forest. After reaching the top of theforest they realized it's too steep to ride back down. Katie, till yet having no complaint with DoggyCruiserintends to try going down the slope. Craig warned Katie that the surface is wet and it might be dangerousto cycle further down. However, assuming the danger of falling, Katie decided to ride down. This isknown as voluntary assumption of risk, which means that the person, Katie, being aware of the dangertook further action. While maneuvering down the slope Katie ran over a bump in high speed. Thevibration caused by speeding over the obstacle caused the Doggy Cruiser to crack and Bertrand is senttumbling out. Craig’s attempts to grab Bertrand while he runs towards him but instead gets bitten byBertrand and runs away in the woods. Katie comes to stop at the bottom of the ravine and tries to runafter Bertrand as it runs past Craig. Unfortunately, Katie trips on a tree root that comes in her way andsprains her ankle which was surgically repaired from the previous incident. These events of incidents areonce again considered “volenti non fit injure” signifying that the plaintiff, Katie, and Craig in this case,voluntarily assumed the risk for his/her injury. Katie should have been more alert and cautious whilerunning after Bertrand.Later, there was email from Craig and Katie, indicating that Craig demands compensation due tothe nightmares caused by the attack of Bertrand. While Katie demands compensation for ligamentdamage in her ankle that affects her career in skiing. These claims of Katie and Craig are signifying thatthey are considering Sophie and Chad as tortfeasor. According to tort law, court demands compensation ofa person who has suffered harm due to the wrongful act of another person, as Sophie and Chad weren’tresponsible for Bertrand attack and Katie’s twisted ankle due to tripping while assuming the risk of
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
End of preview. Want to read all 8 pages?
Upload your study docs or become a
Course Hero member to access this document
Term
Winter
Professor
dan
Tags
Sophie, chad
