Author: admin

At 3 A.M. in
the morning, the defendant was driving at a rate of 75 miles per hour in a
foreign imported car and struck the plaintiff’s shed. The end result was that
shed was completely destroyed. The plaintiff had no advance warning. Because of
the fact that the shed was destroyed, the plaintiff could not store his bicycle
and other bike racing equipment.

At a time
when many law firms and corporations are eliminating jobs for the purpose of
elimination from the budget excess expenditures, paralegals may become more of
an asset.
Because of
the fact that paralegals’ time is charged at lower rates, paralegals may be
employed by law firms and corporations to perform tasks previously performed by
lawyers.

With
specificity, paralegals may be asked to perform legal research of case and
statutory materials in the event that a client requests an answer to a problem
of a legal nature and is concerned about saving money.
In the
situation where a paralegal is well trained, that paralegal can be asked by an
attorney to perform legal research for the purpose of determining a response to
the client’s question.

Subsequent
to the research, however, the attorney must be the person who renders the legal
opinions that need to be made, the reason being that a paralegal cannot provide
legal advice.
The
prosecutor will attempt to within the course of the trial persuade you that the
defendant committed the crime.

Review
Seymour v. Armstrong in Illustration 6-1. An attorney asked you to apply the
holdings of Seymour to the following fact pattern. Mrs. Johnson, the owner of
Frocks, Etc., ordered 50 dresses at the price of $35 per dress to be delivered
in one week. Mrs. Johnson ordered the dresses from ABC Dress Company and sent a
contract stating that she requests 50 dresses at $35 per dress, totaling $1,750
payable upon receipt of the dresses. Mrs. Johnson assumes that when ABC ships
the dresses this indicates that they are assenting to the contract by their
action. However, ABC sends an invoice with the dresses for $1,750 plus shipping
of $106. The attorney wants to know, in light of the holding in Seymour, if ABC
is imposing a new condition in the contract, with no agreement existing between
ABC and Frocks, Etc.?

Reread
Seymour v. Armstrong in Illustration 6-1. Now find and read Steele v. Harrison,
522 P.2d 957 (Kan. 1976).
a. Was there
a meeting of the minds in the contract in Steele?
b. Was there
a meeting of the minds in the contract in Seymour?
c. How is
Steele similar to Seymour?
d. How does
Steele differ factually from Seymour?
e. Does
Steele apply the holding from Seymour?

Following
the facts, you will include your discussion in which you will explain the
current state of the applicable law, analyze the law, and apply the law to the
legally significant facts noted in the facts statement. Any problems posed in
the client’s case and counterarguments should be presented here. This should
not be an exhaustive review of the history of the law but should be focused
analysis of the current state of the law. The law should be applied to each of
the legally significant facts. Note if the law is primary binding or merely
persuasive authority. Use only highly persuasive secondary authorities if
primary authorities are not available. Finally, following the discussion, you
should include a conclusion if a brief answer rather than a conclusion has been
used earlier. Review the discussion sections in Illustrations 7-1 and 7-2. Note
that Illustration 7-2 contains multiple issues, and they are discussed
separately within the memo.

Assume that
the statute in your state provides that Wakefield, the spouse, can renounce the
will within six months of its admission to probate and that she would be
entitled by statute to one-third of the estate and Grayson would be entitled to
the remainder of the estate. Prepare a conclusion for the Wakefield problem.

Nate Late, a
business owner, has two partners in the operation of Loose Cannon Manufacturing
in Anytown in your state. He owns 33 1/3 parts of a $3 million company. Late is
ill but is not dying. He is grooming a 26-year-old boy, Ivan T. All, to run the
business. He tells his family he likes the boy and that he wants to teach him
the business. The business owner, Nate Late, dies. The most current will leaves
the estate of Late to his wife, Shirley Late, and his only son, Lou Sier. All
tells Mrs. Late that Late intended to give All Late’s one-third interest in the
company and that Late told this to All in front of a banker on the day of his
death in front of a banker. The conversation took place during a meeting and
the agreement was never put into writing. Before this meeting, on the day of
Late’s death other employees of Loose Cannon heard Late say that he intended
for All “to get” the business. Family members knew that Late intended for All
to run the business and for All to get something if the business was sold. None
of the family believed that Late intended to give the business to this
newcomer. Late’s shares of stock were never given to All. The shares were in
the safe deposit box shared by Late and his wife of 24 years.
Rob R. Baron
also claims that Late promised to give him the shares in the future. Baron
admits that Late did not physically give him the shares before he died, but
Baron insists that Late said “I shall give you my shares in two years.” Mrs.
Late said that Mr. Late planned to give her the shares. He told her this when
he opened the joint safety deposit box and gave her the key

You are a
paralegal with the firm of Probing and Will. You must research whether Sarah
Wakefield can renounce Adam Antwernt’s will and collect a portion of the estate
in your state.
Your firm’s
client is Sarah Wakefield. She was married to Adam Antwernt. Antwernt died on
February 1, 2015, in your state following a long illness. Wakefield was
Antwernt’s second wife. She had been married to him for more than 20 years and
lived in their home in the Highlands of your state. Antwernt purchased the home
with his first wife, Carry MacOver. MacOver died in 1991. When Antwernt married
Wakefield he never changed the deed for the home to include Wakefield.
Wakefield kept her maiden name. Antwernt adopted a son with MacOver in 1985.
The son, who is now 30 years old, is Grayson Antwernt. Antwernt drafted his
will in May of 2014. He and his wife were getting along fine. However, he
excluded her from his will. He did not leave her any property. Instead, he left
all of his property to Grayson. Antwernt’s will was admitted to probate on July
8, 2015. Wakefield wants to know whether Antwernt’s will is valid and whether
he can divest her of the marital property or whether she can renounce the will
and collect a portion of the estate. Grayson is out of town and his attorney
told Wakefield that she will get her share of the estate once Grayson returns.
He is scheduled to return on January 20, 2016.