Reference no: EM131509484

Assignments: Legal Environment of Business

1ST ASSIGNMENT

Jeff wanted to sell his motor boat. He offered it to Sally for $3700.

Jeff knew that he intended to remove some special water skiing equipment from the boat, which he planned to give to his best friend, Roger, but he never mentioned to Sally anything about his intention to remove the equipment. [Is his Subjective Intent an issue here?]

The ski equipment is very commonly found on this type of boat, and was worth about $375. It was very loosely secured to the top of the boat, but not bolted or otherwise permanently attached to the boat.[Does commonly help Sally or Jeff? Or can both use it as an argument? (Yes, they both can!) And ask the same question regarding loosely attached]

Jeff insisted that Sally take a test drive in the boat, before purchasing it, which she did. After her test drive, Sally agreed to pay the $3700 price. The next day, as they had agreed, Sally gave Jeff the $3700 and Jeff gave her the ownership papers and keys to the boat.

[Can she reasonably expect to get what she was shown on the Test Drive?]

Sally quickly discovered that Jeff had removed the special water skiing equipment. He had also removed his towels, sunglasses, CD Player, and two life jackets, each which had his name embroidered on the front.

Is it reasonable to lump ALL these items together? Or might there be different, reasonable arguments for at least some of these articles?

Even though she does not know how to waterski, and does not need the equipment, Sally insists that Jeff return it. She says she saw it on the boat when she test drove the boat and it should be included in the purchase price.[Must a buyer know how to use an item to be allowed to buy it? Why?]

Was there an Agreement - Mutual Assent? Do you find a Contract here? Explain!

INSTRUCTIONS:

Analyze a legal dispute -- to determine just what the terms of the contract should be -- or if there is an enforceable contract at all.CAREFULLY READ the scenario about Jeff and Sally.

On ONE regular page (Single Space), consider and explain the reasoning that supports the arguments for both Jeff and Sally:

About one half of your assignment should be arguments and reasoning that favors Jeff.
About one half of your assignment should be arguments and reasoning that favors Sally.

You should easily be able to fill most, if not all, of a regular typed page. If you finish with only half a written page, you are NOT doing an adequate job of analyzing the numerous potential arguments.

EXAMPLE:

The facts tell you that the ski equipment -- which both Jeff and Sally believe they should own -- is "Loosely Attached." This fact could be used as an argument for BOTH sides:

Jeff can reasonably argue that since the equipment is Loosely Attached, this suggests that it is NOT completely or permanently Attached -- and when Sally purchases the Boat, she should only expect to receive what was actually a solid or permanent "part" of the boat, (such as the rudder or the steering wheel), so he should be able to keep the "non-permanent" or unattached equipment.

Sally can reasonably argue that since the equipment is Loosely Attached, this suggests that it IS, nevertheless attached, and is not just randomly tossed on the boat, and because it is an attached and integral part of the boat, it should be included with the Boat she purchased from Jeff.

NOTE 1: Mutual Assent, which is a required contract element, occurs when both parties agree to the same bargain at the same time. Mutual Assent is what a Reasonable Person would believe. It is based on Objective Intent - the actual words and conduct of the other party, and not the Subjective Intent (hidden intent), of the other party. When someone has Hidden Intent -- a Subjective or Hidden plan unknown to the other party -- the Court will disregard that Subjective or Hidden Intent.

(HINT: You cannot do this Homework well UNLESS you Discuss MUTUAL ASSENT!)

NOTE 2: OK - you've NEVER purchased a used Boat! But you, or someone in your family, probably has purchased or sold a used car. Consider that car purchase or sale - use it to help you form reasonable arguments here.

NOTE 3: Your answer should focus on these issues: Subjective Intent, Commonly Found, Loosely Attached, the Test Drive, Should All the Numerous Items on the boat be treated Exactly Alike, and Mutual Assent.

If you buy a used car, is the stereo included? Do you get the four tires, or just the car? What about the battery? The spare tire?

Perhaps you are thinking you get only the items that are PERMANENTLY ATTACHED? Maybe not -- the TIRES are not Permanently Attached, but it seems reasonable they are included in the Sale of the Car, even if you do not ask for them! (Could it be because they are Essential to the Operation of the Car?)

And what about the pile of cassettes and CD's on the passenger seat? Are they included if you see them in the car while you are taking a Test Drive? Must you ask the seller for any - or all - of these items? Why? Do you need to know how to drive -- or even be a licensed driver to purchase a car? Why?

2ND ASSIGNMENT

FROM IN OUR DEFENSE

The First Amendment provides us with FOUR of our most significant Rights: Speech, Religion, Assembly and Petition.

The first story --- Missouri Knights v. Kansas City --- tells you much more than just the story about the First Amendment conflict that occurred when the KKK tried to broadcast their program on the local public television station.The Authors also present you with a short history of a far more important concept -- the development and expansion by the United States Supreme Court (USSC) of the meaning and scope of Speech under the First Amendment.

From the World War One period, when the USSC created the Clear and Present Danger test -- to the TWO key cases (with very different results!), involving Communists in the 1950s, to the 1969 Brandenburg case, where the Court established the current "imminent violence" rule -- the Court often changed the tests, the rules and thereby expanded the scope of our protected (legal) speech.

Write a Summary or Re-Statement of how the USSC expanded the meaning, interpretation and limits of the First Amendment Right of Free Speech during the 20th Century. Do you understand the Clear and Present Danger test that sent Mr. Debs to prison? This C & PD Test enabled the government to stop just about any speech, by just arguing it caused a Clear and Present Danger!

Do you understand why the Court found a difference between advocating violence and advocating a belief in violence in the Communists cases?

Do you understand the modern rule that requires a showing of imminent or immediate violence before the Court will find unprotected speech and allow that speech to be punished?

Explain how the interpretation of the First Amendment changed in the 20th century. Discuss the key Tests, Rules and Cases as outlined in the first story from IN OUR DEFENSE.

Briefly Explain WHY you think the Court has changed the rules and interpretation of this part of the First Amendment.
(One Page, Single Space)

3RD ASSIGNMENT

ROSALIE, JONATHON & the DATE

Rosalie, a well-known, wealthy widow, and a high society member who participates frequently in gala fund-raising events for the Opera, the Ballet and the Symphony, invited a gentleman, Jonathan, to her posh estate, for dinner. After dinner, he was to escort her to the Opening of an important Art Exhibit, at the very famous museum near where she lived. Jonathan, a humble College Professor, eagerly accepted her offer. It was to be their very first date.

Jonathan spent lavishly to create the proper impression, and to make sure he did not embarrass her in front of her friends. For his first rendezvous with ravishing Rosalie, he purchased a new suit, new shirt and tie, new shoes, fresh flowers, a rare 1959 Cabernet, and rented a new Maserati to drive her to the museum.

On the designated date, Jonathan, drove to her hillside mansion, entered the gated driveway, and left a $100 tip with her parking attendant, who parked his car in the guest garage. But when the front doors of her home opened, her Butler informed him that Ms. Rosalie had left for the evening, and had not advised him about any visitors, dinner company, or museum opening for that evening. The Butler would not allow him to enter and wait for her.

Jonathon was quite distraught when he left her palatial estate - and he lost control of the Maserati - slamming it into a pole when he returned it to the dealer. The crash caused $12,000 damage to the car - and since his insurance only covered $9,500 - he was responsible for $2500.

Jonathan sues Rosalie to recover his expenses, including the suit, shirt and tie, shoes, flowers, wine, car rental, car repair and tip. He also intends to ask the Court to give him $800 for the estimated value of his lost time - 4 hours, at $200 per hour. (He used the hourly rate his attorney charges to estimate how much his time is worth!)

Will Jonathon collect any of the money he is asking for? Explain why or why not!

Courts usually prefer to avoid becoming involved in Romance Relationship disputes.

But a Court will occasionally get involved with these issues:

When a Bride or Groom has failed to show up for the Wedding ceremony - or one dropped out just days in advance **Courts have often ordered that the expenses incurred by the other person be reimbursed! (It's Reasonable to expect that each person - the almost-bride and almost-groom - may incur considerable expenses preparing for the wedding.)

**There have even been a few cases where Courts have ordered a boy - who failed to show up to take a girl to the Junior Prom - to reimburse the girl for her Prom expenses. (new dress, new purse, new shoes, and new hair style.) The Court said that after she accepted his invitation, it was Reasonable for him to expect she would spend a considerable amount to prepare for the Prom.

Note: Is there a difference between a date (agreement) to meet after the High School football game for a burger and fries, and a date (agreement) to attend the School Prom? Why or why not?

Is there a difference between the passionate promise often offered late at night on a first date that of course I'll still love you in the morning, and the compelling promise to show up for the wedding ceremony, made after a year of dating, discussing and planning? Why or why not?

You do not need to find much law in the textbook for this homework assignment. Try to use some basic Common Sense, and perhaps a rule or two about contracts that we have discussed in class.

Focus on the concept of what a Reasonable Person would expect in various romance/relationship situations. The concept of Reasonable Expectations is a common one Courts use to help resolve disputes.

Ask yourself, as you look at the many possibilities above, what would a Reasonable Person Expect here?