Reference no: EM13867350

In this assignment, we will attemptto utilize some of the concepts of legal writing that we will discuss in class.Below you will find an essay that, to put it mildly, needs a bit of work. Thewording is verbose and uses "slang". There is no focus or organization to theessay and the case citations are in the wrong places and in the incorrectformat. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Your assignment is to: 

1) Critique the essay and explain, point by point, what is wrong with theessay; and 

2) Re-write (salvage) the essay in a style and format that is appropriate for alegal document. You can assume that the cases cited are at least appropriatefor the propositions that they purport to support and you need not find newcases. However, confirming that the appropriate statutes or sections of thosecases are cited is important. If necessary, you should find the appropriatestatute to cite and cite it.

Here we go...: 

This story is replete with fascinating facts and the intricacies that areinherent in the facts of the case make for a great story. The baseball bat wasbroken from the outset when it was bought by the plaintiff. Therefore, thedefendant should have to return the baseball bat and pay the money back to theplaintiff that plaintiff paid for said bat. The plaintiff bought a baseball batfrom the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken since as soonas the defendant used the bat to play baseball, the bat shattered into amillion pieces. Shattering into a million pieces certainly violates the impliedwarranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code ("U.C.C.").INDUSTRIA DE CALCADOS MARTINI LTDA. v. MAXWELL SHOE CO., INC. No. 92-P-1322APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS 36 Mass. App. Ct. 268; 630 N.E.2d 299; 1994Mass. App. LEXIS 274; 23 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 89 December 20, 1993,Argued March 21, 1994, Decided. Also, there's a case that expounded upon thisissue and told us that a baseball bat can't crack when it's used normally.Otherwise, the store has to give back the money to the plaintiff. LaurenceDudzik et al., Plaintiffs, v. Klein's All Sports, Defendant. SC# 92-390 JUSTICECOURT OF NEW YORK, TOWN OF COLONIE, ALBANY COUNTY 158 Misc. 2d 72; 600 N.Y.S.2d1013; 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 272; 21 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 592 June9, 1993, Decided. 

The extrapolation that can be clearly drawn from these cases is that if aplaintiff buys a baseball bat, the said bat must be in that condition that wasrepresented to the heretofore named parties. At least, the bat must be insufficient marketable condition so that the implied warranty owing from theparty of the first part to the party of the second part must be sustained.Also, as if those cases weren't enough, the U.C.C. demands that goods must bein good condition when they are sold. I can't show exactly where in the U.C.C.it says this, but that's the general feeling I got from reading the U.C.C. 

For the re-write, you do NOT need a full IRAC-style essay. Just make the samepoint as the essay above was trying to make in a more effective manner