85 and up A 28 77 84 B 55 64 76 C 61 63 down D 18 Form A Form B 1 T 1 T 2 F 2 T

85 and up a 28 77 84 b 55 64 76 c 61 63 down d 18

This preview shows page 10 - 12 out of 12 pages.

85 and up A (28) 77-84 B (55) 64-76 C (61) 63 down D (18) Form A: Form B 1. T 1. T 2. F 2. T 3. F 3. F 4. T 4. F 5. T 5. T 6. F 6. T 7. T 7. F 8. C 8. E 9. A 9. E 10. E 10. B 11. E 11. C 12. B 12. A 13. D 13. A 14. A 14. C 15. C 15. D Essays: I. McMurray v. Sellers and Brokers (15 points): fraudulent misrepresentation McMurray must prove: 1. Misrepresentation of a Material Fact: Clearly the “possible” relocation of the highway is a fact that would materially affect her decision to purchase the business. She will argue that the sellers/brokers had a duty to discover and inform her of the relocation. She will argue that it is a latent defect and that they had superior knowledge of the facts , and that the broker is an expert, so they had a duty not to remain silent. Defendants will argue that is not a material fact concerning the sale of the business. It in no way affects the sale of the store. [5 points] 2. Made with Knowledge of the falsity and intent to deceive: McMurray will have to argue that they should have known about the relocation since it had been in the works since 1999 and it was public knowledge [discuss why they should have known]. Defendants will argue that they had no way of knowing and it was not party of their duty to her to investigate “possible” relocations of roads near the business. They will also argue that the actual approval did not come until after she purchased the store [discuss] [5 points] 3. Plaintiff relies on the misrepresentation: McMurray will have to argue that she would not have purchased the store had she known this information, and that they should have known and told her. Defendants have a really good argument on this point since she had her consultant, how could she have relied on them. [4 points] 10
Image of page 10
4. Injury resulted. No problem on these facts. [1 point]II. Martin v. Colt: Defectively Designed Pistol [20 points]Martin will argue:Colt sold a defective product that was unreasonable dangerousto the user. Clearly Colt is in the business of selling this product and the product has not been modified. She will argue a design defect that unreasonably dangerous, that is, dangerous beyond the expectation of a normal consumer. Issue is: is a pistol without a disconnect a defectively designed product? [3 points]1.What is the utility of the product vs the risk to the user? [they need to have a full discussion of what both will argue—usefulness to law enforcement and for security purposes vs. risk that one would not know that there could be a bullet in the chamber when the magazine is out. [5 points] 5. Expectations of the ordinary consumer:
Image of page 11
Image of page 12

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture