1.

Initially, there was a contract established between Maggie and Bill because there was an

offer made and it was accepted with consideration. However, roughly 7 or 8 months had

passed and there was no contact between Maggie and Bill which could be considered a

reasonable amount of time without establishing any terms therefore potentially making

the contract void. Based on the circumstances of this case I believe that Maggie would

prevail.

2. As society evolves, it will adopt new rules and regulations for its citizens to abide by.

Over the course of history judicial views of what is socially acceptable has changed

because social norms have transformed overtime. These historical changes have been an

example of what is acceptable and what is not, also they have shown the dos and don’ts

when it comes to societal norms. History is a matter of trial and error meaning that todays

society is an image of repeating this that worked then that can relate to society now and

improving what didn’t work back then to benefit society today. Back in the 19th century

courts were not willing to interfere with private agreements or anything to do with a

potential interference with the countries growing industrialization (159). Also,

businesses were allowed to get away with much more, for example, if their products

caused and injury they were not liable. Back then things were pretty black and white as

far as how things were ran. If an individual entered into a contract willingly it was

usually enforced even if it was an unfair result (159). Overall, contract law is always

changing to keep up with the new challenges and shifting norms of society.

3. In this case I would rule in favor of Troy because in this specific circumstance Angela

does not have personal jurisdiction. Angela is unable to sue in Maryland because the

furniture is from North Carolina and she was in North Carolina when she made the
 purchase even if it was an online purchase. It is possible that the furniture was damaged

during the transportation process from North Carolina to Maryland but since the hard

facts within the case are in North Carolina I would have to rule in favor of Troy. Also, for

Angela to obtain nonresident jurisdiction she would need the three factors which are the

nonresident defender must participate in an activity to make herself known in that

territory, the claim must be territory related, and the last factor is the application has to be

reasonable (Bates, et. al. 31). In this specific case, these factors do not apply to Angela

therefore she is unable to claim jurisdiction.

4. The ethical model that supports Toms decision of relocating is Profit maximization. By

moving the factory to Lubbock, Texas, to will be able to not only maximize profit for the

factory but for the share holders as well. The various profit benefits of this move include

lower labor costs, lower prices for consumers, and there is no state income tax which will

benefit its workers. It is possible that profit maximization can cause harm to the

employees but in this situation determining what is best for the factory is the main goal.

5. Julia is not able to enforce Kathrine’s promise because she never accepted the offer. For

an offer to be valid there must be an offer made, acceptance of that offer, and

consideration.

6. Under the statue of frauds, the law states that there needs to be more evidence sometimes

put forth to demonstrate that a contract was discussed i.e. written proof. For a contract to

be enforceable under a statute of frauds there are certain types of contracts that need to be

in writing. These contracts include ones where the executor of an estate agrees to pay the

estate debts of the deceased individual, transfer of interest in land, one person paying

another’s debt, contracts that are unable to be performed in a year, and the Uniform
 Commercial Code that states that contracts for the sale of goods that cost $500 or more

need to be written in order to be enforceable (262).

7. Yes, Padma must pursue her claim through arbitration. When signing her work contracts

Padma was fully aware that she would be unable to sue in open court when the contract

strictly said any dispute would be handled through arbitration.

8. Punitive damages go beyond the compensation awarded to the injured party. Punitive

damages are given to the injured party to punish the party that has been charged with

committing a terrible offense and to discourage other parties from making that same

mistake in fear of receiving a large punitive damages fee. In recent years, courts have

reduced punitive damages fees and the circumstances in which they are awarded.

9. Because she is talking about his business and services this specific situation could fall

under the tort of disparagement. However, since Grace is telling Will these things about

himself, he is unable to sue. The facts presented in the case does not say that she

published these statements anywhere or said them to a third party she just may have hurt

Wills feelings by saying these things, but the law does not allow people to sue because

they go their feelings hurt. Therefore, Will does not have an actual case and Grace wins.

10. Due diligence refers to an individual’s legal obligation to do the right thing and avoid any

type of harm for themselves or anyone else. In a case of claims for misrepresentation and

fraud, the individual being convicted of these things is perceived to not have done their

due diligence because in one way or another they put another individual in harms way

with what they did.

11. Personally, I think it was not smart for Martha to agree to Lindenwood not being

responsible for any injuries cause by mold. I believe that that being in the contract would
 be a red flag that she should not live there in the first place. I think it depends on the

Judge with this case. On one hand, she could claim they were reckless because they knew

the mold could potentially be a problem to the health of various individuals. However,

Lindenwood could have a defense of comparative negligence because both parties were

aware that the mold could pose a potential threat to the heath of those living there. Either

way I think Martha will be able to recover some damages, but it is just a matter of how

much.

12. Lindenwood is correct is suing Julia for a breach of contract because that is exactly what

she did a few months after entering into a contract with them. However, there is no

evidence to support that Peabody knew that Julia was already in contract with

Lindenwood. For this reason, I don’t think Lindenwood has any claims to sue Peabody

for tortious interference because there is no way to tell if what they did was intentional or

not.

13. Police power is the government’s power to control the citizen within the rules and

regulations of the law to help maintain health, safety, and security. Police are responsible

for enforcing the state and country mandated laws. Under the taking clause it prohibits

the government from taking real or personal property for public use without adequate

compensation (Barnes, et. al 79). Even if the current owners are not living on the

property, this is still a violation of the taking clause because these individuals are not

being compensated for there land that is being rezoned for publics use even if it is for the

environment its being passively used for the public.

14. The Forth Amendment protects public employees from being searched or seized without

probable cause. If a public company implements an employee random search policy they
 are in violation of their employees Fourth Amendment rights. Normally and individual

would have to prove that the search was an unlawful invasion of their privacy. In this

specific case I believe because there was a gun found and Schrute does not have a

conceal carry he would lose because of the weapons charges that came with the search

and the arrest.

15. There was a minor beach in contract because of the little adjustments that were made

with the temperature sensors and the air flow vent but there was no major issue with the

warehouse. Because Lindenwood created a warehouse that generally conforms to the

contract and passes the inspection, they are entitled to the valued price of the warehouse

based off the materials that they ended up using for the warehouse.

Essay Questions

Question 1

Lindenwood entered into a contract with Noell Engineering thinking that they

were the best company to help them achieve their goal to build flood damns along the

Missouri River. Noell holds its company to a high standard with water technology and

engineering so other companies should be able to hold them to that same standard.

Lindenwood originally entered into the contract with Noell engineering on April 2010

when the turbine installation date was set for September 2011. In January of the

installation year Lindenwood heard rumors about the Turbines not working in other

places like there were promised to work within the contract. I believe that these rumors

gave Lindenwood the right to email Noell Engineering and ask to make sure that they

could still guarantee the terms of the turbines from the contract. In February, they

emailed Lindenwood back claiming that they could still abide by the contract. However,
Lindenwood was not satisfied with their explanation which resulted in them cancelling

the contract.

A breach in contract is when one or both of the parties in this case enter into a

contract and the terms of the contract are not honored. Personally, I believe that

Lindenwood has the stronger case. Turbines are obviously a large and technically sound

product that need to be efficient and correct in the way that they run. If these turbines

were not up to the caliber that Lindenwood needed to be or even their promised caliber

Lindenwood had the right to cancel the contract with Noell because either way the

contract was not being followed. The strength of Noell engineering’s claim is that they

did have to design, buy the material, and begin to construct the turbines which is not

easy. However, knowing this and the terms of their contract their company was obligated

to follow through on each term of the contract.

When dealing with performance in law it refers to the fulfillment of a promise,

contract, or other obligation. Technically, neither party held up to their end of the legal

concept regarding performance. Lindenwood, because they cancelled their contract, they

did not hold up that part of the performance. As for Noell Manufacturing they didn’t keep

their promise or obligation to the terms discussed of the turbines. Overall, I do believe

that Lindenwood has the stronger case in terms of facts presented.

Question 2

The ethical theory that I think supports the use of arbitration provisions is Profit

Maximization. Profit maximization states that a company will do whatever they can to

maximize profits. With arbitration each part agrees on the arbitrations, so the company

has a partial say so in who is hearing their case. The dispute is usually resolved much
sooner, and it’s is a lot less expensive than going to court and dealing with trials that

could go on for a while. Arbitration is private so depending on how important the

problem is the company would be able to keep it disclosed which could save them money

that they could potentially lose if a scandal were to break out. With arbitration there is

also a limited possibility for wither side to appeal so once the arbitration is over and the

decision is made that is the end of it. This is also another smart advantage because the

company is saving money avoiding another dispute.

The justice theory opposes the use of mandatory arbitration. The justice theory

believes in fair allocation of society’s benefits and burdens of all members in society

(Bates, et. al. 53). Since companies mandate arbitration it does not give employees a fair

choice or chance to use the equal liberty rights provided by the justice system within the

courts. With the justice theory the decision makers, also known as judges’ choices are

guided by fairness and impartiality. With mandatory arbitration the use of societies

resources or give employee the option to access their basic rights and liberties.

Arbitration is a form or silencing a potentially major dispute.

Question 3

Originally, what the monks were doing was just a part of their practices and

beliefs. Making hand-crafted caskets to bury the members of their order in which is fine

because it was not bothering anyone. However, when they started selling these caskets to

make money that’s when they were in violation of the law. There are rules and

regulations about the different licenses for various businesses, so it is not like this is a

unique case. In my opinion this case is simple in what the ruling should be.
 I would rule against the monks in this case. The Due Process clause prohibits the

federal government from depriving an individual of life liberty or property. The Equal

protection Clause prohibits any state from arbitrarily discriminating against individuals

(Bates, et. al. 81). In this scenario the monks are no being deprive of life, liberty, or

property, and neither are they being discriminated against. I understand that they wanted

to raise money to support their monastery and they thought that since making those

caskets is something that they are good at they assumed that it would be a good idea.

They could have done various things to raise money. There are rules and regulations for

businesses for a reason that’s what keeps society running smoothly.

In summary, the overall reason for my ruling is that there is not enough evidence

to back the monk’s accusation of Iowa’s State Bored denying their rights to due process

and equal protection. What the bored told them was the truth they were in violation

because they did not have a license to sell caskets and selling items that require a license

to be sold without a license is against the law.