Instructions
In answering each question, discuss all relevant laws, and discuss whether they apply or not. Although the main issue area is given in parenthesis, apply any other laws also that come into play. Give reasons.
The responses should be written in the form of systematic legal analysis.
Choose FOUR of the five questions given here. Each question carries 5 points.
Write at least 100 words for each answer.
You may discuss and orally consult with one another; however, each student must submit his/her own individual work.
- A doctor in a University of Chicago hospital seriously assaulted a patient in an examining room. The patient sued the hospital on the theory that the doctor was an agent or employee of the hospital and the assault occurred within the hospital. Is the hospital liable for the acts of its agent? Why? (Principle agent issue)
- Silverman, who was elderly and somewhat disabled, lived alone on a farm. Silverman called Burch and said, “Burch, if you will move in with me and help me take care of the farm, it will be yours when I die.” Burch did as Silverman requested and on Silverman’s death two years later, claimed the farm on the basis of their oral agreement, but the estate resisted. Is Burch entitled to the farm? Why? (Contracts)
- On February 12, Sally was hired to manage a company for a period of one year. She reported for work on February 26 but was fired two weeks later. She sued the owner of the company for breach of their one-year oral contract. May she recover? Why? (Contracts)
- Mr. and Mrs. Smith, an elderly couple, had no relatives. When Mrs. Smith became ill, the Smiths asked a friend, Henrietta, to help with various housekeeping chores, including cleaning and cooking. Although the Smiths never promised to pay her, Henrietta performed the chores for eighteen months. Henrietta now claims that she is entitled to the reasonable value of the services performed. Is she correct? Explain. (Contracts).
- Sarah purchased several elegant picture frames to hang in her dorm room. She also purchased a package of self-sticking hangers. Late one evening, while Sarah was studying business law in the library, the hangers came loose and her frames came crashing to the floor. After Sarah returned to her room and discovered the rubble, she examined the box in which the hangers were packaged and found the following language: “There are no warranties except for the description on this package and specifically there is NO IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHNATABILITY.” Assuming the hangers are not of fair, average, ordinary quality, would the hanger, would the hanger company be liable for breaching an implied warranty of merchantability? Why? (warranties)
