Dear Student, please read the assignment requirements. If the student failed to follow these requirements a ZERO would be issued for failing to follow the grading requirements.
1. Answer these five questions using chapter 6 and 7 from your textbook. The students would need to log in to cengage.com enter their email address and default password to access the textbook.
EMAIL: XXXXXXXXXX
PASSWORD: Mo.mo1999
2. You need to state the Issue, the rule, the analysis, and the conclusion for each question.
3. The issue part is easy, and nobody misses that, it should be NO LONGER than one sentence, and it would be the same question you are being asked.
4. The rule needs to be identified using the textbook and using cengage.com, you would need to read chapter 6 and 7 to find the rule and you would need to state the page number of the textbook where you found the rule. You also would need to idnetify the rule and relate it to the nature of the problem so you can be able to come up with the analysis.
5. The analysis needs to discuss the rule using facts.
6. The conclusion needs to be ONE sentence long and it answers the questions.
**ANY FAILING TO FOLLOW THESE REQUIRNMENTS WOULD RESULT IN A 0% FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT **
1. Wrongful Interference. Su was a lead manager of the leadership development program
for a national retail company called Solman. She’d made significant contribution to the
program to train all store managers and had even received high praises from the company’s
CEO for the program’s success. She and her boyfriend, Kai, decided to move from Wyoming
to Washington state because they love the Pacific Northwest. She asked her company if they
had a similar position with the company in Seattle. Her regional director answered in the
negative, but told her there was a new operations project manager position to oversee the
day-to-day operations of a cluster of stores. Solman was willing to transfer her to that
position and pay for location if she signs a 3-year contract with them. Su did so and moved
to Seattle. A year later, she was ready to get out of that position. She hated the job because it
wasn’t not challenging, but it requires her to put in a lot of hours. As a result, she couldn’t
spend a lot of time with her boyfriend, and they
oke up. Su secretly started initiating
contact in her network to explore career opportunities elsewhere. Bomington, one of
Solman’s biggest retail competitors, approached Su while fully aware that Su’s contract
with Solman was still effective for another two years. Bomington and Su maintained stealth
communication six months, during which time Su stated that she intended to continue
working for Solman until her contract officially ends, but she also expressed her interest in
working for Bomington to kickstart its own leadership development program. Bomington
knew that Su had also been talking to other companies and it might lose of her to one of its
competitors. Bomington doubled its initial salary offer and promised her exclusive control
of its leadership development program. Su finally agreed to terminate her contract with
Soman. Bomington also promised Su that it would pay for all costs and fees associated with
litigating the
each of contract. Solman sued Bomingtonfor tortuous interference with its
contract with Su. Will the court agree with Solman that Bomington committed the tort of
wrongful interference with a contractual relationship? Discuss.
2. Comparative Negligence. After
eaking up with Su, Kai found another girlfriend. One
day, he went to Pacific Market, an Asian grocery store, to buy ingredients to make Pad Thai
for dinner with his new girlfriend. While shopping around, he encountered a tank full of
live Dungeness crabs in the corner of the seafood section of the store. The crabs were on
sale – 20% off the regular price. Kai thought about buying a few for his family who loved
crabs. The employees were busy helping other customers with the fish orders at the
counter so he had to wait for his turn. While Kai waited, he realized that about 3-4 crabs on
top of the tank were not moving. To verify for himself whether or not they were dead, he
stuck his hand in the tank in an attempt to provoke them to move. At first they did not
move, so he continued to poke at them with his fingers. One crab suddenly bit his index
finger and would not release. Kai’s scream caught the attention of the workers. They
ushed over and amputated the crab’s claw to release Kai’s finger. Kai suffered a fractured
one and intense pain. Kai
ought a negligence lawsuit against Pacific Market in the state
court for not warning him about the crabs and therefore causing him injury. The jury found that
Kai was 60% at fault. Discuss whether Kai would be able to recover any damages from this
lawsuit if the state follows the pure comparative negligence rule. Also discuss whether he
would recover if the state instead has the “50 percent” comparative negligence rule.
3. Liability to Business Invitee. Su and her sister, Lin, rented a motel room in Last
Chance, Colorado, during their visit to attend their cousin’s wedding. On their second night,
three intruders kicked open the door, shot a them, and injured Lin. The intruders also took
$1,500 from the sisters. The sisters sued the motel owners, claiming that the owners had
een negligent in failing to provide adequately for the safety of the motel’s guests. At trial,
the evidence showed that the door had a hollow core and that it fit poorly into the doo
frame. There was no deadbolt lock on the door, although such locks were easily available
and commonly used in motels. The only lock on the door was one fitted into the doo
handle, which was described as a grade three lock, although a security chain was attached
to the door. The sisters had both locked and chained the door, but still, a single kick on the
part of the intruders was all that was necessary to open it. Evidence at trial also indicated
that a deadbolt lock would have withstood the force that was applied to the door. Did the
motel owners have a duty to protect their guests from criminal acts on the motel premises,
and if so, did the owners
each that duty of care by failing to provide more secure locks on
the doors of the motel rooms?
4. Duty to Business Invitee. After the lawsuit against the hotel owners, Lin moved to
another city to start her paralegal career. She found a nice little apartment close to her new
job. Aside from some big furniture which she still needed to buy, she was all settled in. As
Lin was jogging one Saturday morning, she went passed a store called At Living Discount
Furniture. She decided to stop by to look for a couch and dresser. She thought the business
hours sign said “Saturday: 10AM – 8PM” (it actually said “11AM – 8PM). It was now 10:15
am. Although the “Closed” sign was displayed, she thought it was a mistake, so she pushed
on the door and found it was unlocked. She entered the store and started wondering
around. As she turned a corner, she fell into a large hole in the floor left from an unfinished
construction job. Lin suffered lacerations on her legs and arms, a
oken ankle, as well as
uises on her head. When a couple of employees heard her scream, they rushed to the
scene and found her in the hole. One asked, “How did you get in here? We’re not opened
until 11 AM!” Lin replied in anger, “The door was unlocked!” Lin sued At Living fo
damages resulting from her fall. The issues before the court are whether Lin was a business
invitee as opposed to a trespasser and whether the store owed any duty to warn Lin of the
isk. Discuss.
5. Strict Product Liability. After the lawsuit against Pacific Market, Kai decided to use
the little small money award he received from his case to buy a scooter (moped) to
commute to work. He went to a scooter dealer, Scooter Depot, to explore his options. Afte
eing showed different models and test-driving a few scooters, he settled for the latest
model. He paid and drove it home. While driving down a street he’d never been on before,
Kai did not see a curve at the end of the street and drove off it. He tried to use the
akes,
ut it was too late. He slammed into a big tree and injured himself and damaged the new
scooter. He took the scooter to a mechanic to check the
akes, but they found nothing
wrong with them except the front
ake was a bit tight. Once again, Kai found himself
involved in another lawsuit. His attorney wrote a letter to Scooter Depot claiming that it
was strictly liable for Kai’s injuries due to the front
ake being too tight and demanded a
huge amount of money to settle Kai’s potential strict product liability claims. The attorney
for Scooter Depot wrote back and stated that it was not tight
ake pad that caused Kai’s
injury, but it was his failure to apply the
akes, and, therefore Kai had no strict liability
claim. Discuss whether Kai has a viable strict product liability claim