BA 287T Mid-Term Exam Key
In this key, I will merely document the law, I will not fully develop all factual arguments or conclusions that one must make. Also, I will give extra points to good arguments that I have not considered. The grade distribution is listed below.
Grade Distribution.
Although I am not assigning a letter grade at this time, remember that the general guidelines for core courses is 30% As, 60% Bs, and 10% Cs or below. Emerson and I will generally follow these guidelines.
1. Denise v. Dallas Cowboys-- respondeat superior (15 points):
a) Was the act authorized by the Cowboys? Denise will argue that the Cowboys so closely monitored the player's activities that they were overseeing even the free time. See the Club rules for training camp.
[In the real case, Mauk v. Wright (Pa. 1973), the jury found for Denise and the court refused to grant the defendant's (Washington Redskins) motion for a summary judgment.]
Oscar's arguments:
Bank's arguments: No oral contract because the discussion between the Bank and Oscar was just preliminary negotiations. There was no discussion of the terms of the loan-- interest rate, loan amount, term of the loan-- therefore the "offer" was not reasonable certain. Finally, the loan officer did not reasonably believe that an offer was being made.
2. Promissory Estoppel: [10 points] Oscar will argue that he detrimentally relied on the Bank's promise to lend him the money for the Hobby Lobby order.
Oscar will argue that the loan officer's statement of "No problem" was a promise to lend him enough money to complete the order.
[In the real case Werner v. Norwest Bank South Dakota (1993), the court held no express oral contract because the terms were too vague and no promissory estoppel because plaintiff was not justified in his reliance on the vague "promise" of the Bank]
3. Donna v. Ford Motor Co. (Strict Liability) [15 points]
b) Defendant is a merchant; not a problem everyone knows that Ford sells cars.
c) The defect made the product "unreasonably dangerous":
d) Plaintiff incurred injury to herself by being locked in the trunk for 9 days.
e) The defect was the proximate cause of the injury.
f) The product was not substantially changed from the time of sale.
4. Don v. Jack & Virginia Breach of Contract? [20 points]
Don's arguments:
The Defendants arguments (in addition to the ones listed above): [5 points]
This outcome of this case is based on whether or not there was mutual assent to be bound.
[The actual case McAfee v. Brewer (1974) held that the June 3 letter was an acceptance of the April 30 offer.]
5. Mary Jane v. Bob Jones Ford- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress [15 points]
In order for Mary Jane to establish IIED against Zeiser (Z) and Gilmore (G), she must prove: [10 points]
Z and G will argue that they were merely acting as reasonable employees in trying to get the car back-- anyone would be upset
Bob Jones Ford Liability: [5 points] Plaintiff must prove that the employees were acting within the scope of employment and the intentional tort was as a result of the employer's business activities. In this case if the actions of Z and G were IIED, then Bob Jones Ford is liable because they were acting for the company.
2) Buster breached his duty of care to George: Buster did not act as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances. [Discuss whether a reasonable person would leave the keys in the ignition on the parking lot, after hours in a bad neighborhood]. [5 points]
3) The breach of this duty was the causation in fact (but for) of George's injuries. In this case it is clear that but for Buster leaving the keys in the car, George would not have been injured. [1 point]
4)Was the breach of duty the proximate cause of George's injuries? Was the effect of the act (George being injured by the car operated by the kids that stole the car) reasonably foreseeable? Another words, is George a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff? Buster will argue that the car being left on the street overnight and then driven by one of the friends of the teenage thieves, breaks the chain of causation-- it is a superseding intervening force. George will argue that it was foreseeable that this could happen. [Discuss] [7 points]
5) George suffered a legally recognized injury. No problem on these facts. [1 point]
[This case is a composite based on several similar cases-- the courts are evenly split between finding foreseeability and not].
Professor Murray
Fall 1996
November 5, 1996
I will be in my office on Monday, November 18 from 10-11 am and Tuesday, November 19 from 2-3:00 to answer any questions you may have concerning your grade. If you have questions about a particular questions please submit it in writing with your test. I will not accept grade inquiries after Thursday, November 21.
Average 71
Median 72
76 and above: top 30%
60-75 middle 60%
59 and below bottom 10%
Denise's arguments: [10 points]
1) Moose, an employee, of the Dallas Cowboys negligently injured Denise by running a red light and hitting her 1993 Saturn.
Cowboys' arguments: [5 points]
2) Denise must prove that Moose was acting within the scope of his employment when he hit her. To prove this one must consider the following factors:
b) The time, place and purpose of the act: It appears that this act was done on Moose's free time. Denise must argue that even the player's free time is part of the whole training camp experience.
c) The extent to which the Cowboys' interest was advanced by the act-- Was the free time activities of the training camp vital to build the goal of mental unity of the team?
d) The extent to which the private interests of the employee were involved: It was Moose's car, Moose's free time, Moose's judgment to drink a pitcher of beer and then drive. How much control does the employer have?
e) Do the Cowboys have reason to know that the employee would do the act in question? Denise will argue that they would because of the tight control over all aspects of the player's lives-- even in situations not "directly connected with the team."
[You do not have to cover all 5 of these points, just the majority]
2. Was there an enforceable contract between Oscar and the Bank to lend the money necessary to complete the order from Hobby Lobby? [15 points]
1. Oral Contract existed [5 points]: offer= the June 1993 meeting with the loan officer to discuss loan; Oscar asked if the Bank could handle a $70,000 to $80,000 loan, loan officer replied no problem.
Oscar must prove:
a) The Bank made a promise to lend him the money;
b) The Bank could reasonably expect Oscar to rely on the promise to his detriment;
c) Oscar does rely on the promise; and
d) Enforcement of the promise is necessary to avoid injustice.
Bank will argue that it was not a promise-- just start of preliminary negotiation-- too vague to enforce.
Oscar will argue that the bank knew he was relying on the loan to complete the order because they did loan approximately $19,000, that he was justified in relying on the promise, and it would be unjust not to require the agreement to be carried out.
The Bank will also argue that there is no injustice in this case because they could not reasonably expect Oscar to rely on something so vague.
In order for Donna to prevail on the grounds of strict liability, she must prove:
a) the product was defective when Ford sold the car: she must argue that selling a car with a trunk without an interior latch makes the car defective.
Ford will argue (in addition to above):
Ford will argue that the trunk is not designed for passengers, therefore a latch is not necessary.
i) a trunk without an interior latch is dangerous beyond the expectation of a reasonable consumer, or
ii) a less dangerous alternative [a trunk with an interior latch] was economically feasible.
Ford will argue that no consumers expect the trunk to contain an interior latch.
1) No liability because Donna assumed the risk.
[In the real case, Daniell v. Ford Motor Co. (1984) the court granted summary judgment for Ford, finding that the trunk was not defective or unreasonably dangerous, and that the plaintiff was engaged in unforeseeable misuse.]
a) She voluntarily got into the trunk and slammed the hood;
2) Product Misuse that was unforeseeable-- no one would expect (or foresee) that a person would voluntarily get into the trunk to commit suicide (or for any other reason). The trunk is to store luggage and other things, not people.
b) She knew that there was no interior latch;
c) She appreciated the danger-- she knew that once in the trunk, she could not get out unless someone let her out.
a) Don will argue that the April 30 letter was an offer which Jack and Virginia accepted. In order for the offer to be valid: [5 points]
1) the offeror (Don) must have a serious intent to be bound. Don's statement in the letter to return with the first payment indicates this.
b) Don will also argue that the June 3 letter from the defendants was an acceptance of the April 30 offer. [8 points]
2) the terms of the offer must be reasonably certain. The price list and the payment schedule seem to indicate this, but Jack will argue that they thought they could pick and choose the items.
3) the offer must be communicated to the offeree (no problem on these facts)
1) the defendants' acts must be extreme and outrageous beyond the bounds accepted in society and
2) the defendants intentionally caused her severe emotional distress (evidenced by her rash, her inability to do her household work, and her need to start taking anti-depressant medication once again).
[You must discuss whether you think the defendants Z and G's conduct was intentional, extreme and outrageous]
[In the real case, LaBrier v. Anheuser Ford (1981) the court held the defendant's conduct to be extreme and outrageous]
6. George v. Buster-- Negligence [20 points]:
George must prove:
1) Buster was under a duty to use due care to assure that George would not be injured by Robert's stolen car; Clearly Buster has a duty to Robert to take reasonable steps to assure that his car is not stolen while in Buster's possession; the question is whether this duty extends beyond Robert to George. Another words, is George a reasonably foreseeable plaintiff? [6 points]