Category: Writing

When Mann
intentionally struck McMillan on the head and in the face with a rusty, metal
bucket and sand without McMillan’s consent and McMillan was injured, a battery
occurred.
Camp Cougar
will not be found vicariously liable for an intentional act of its agent, Mann,
because it did not benefit from that act nor did the camp control Mann’s
actions.

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.?

Prepare a
list of each of the relevant authorities. Note that not all authorities will be
relevant. Include only those that help you to determine the law involved in
your case. For your list, include the name of the authority. If the authority
is a case, list the holding or summary statement of the significance of the authority.
Note the complete citation. It is also helpful to list whether the authority is
a primary binding, primary persuasive, or secondary authority.

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.

Read Seymour
v. Armstrong, 64 P. 612 (Kan. 1901), reprinted in Chapter 6 (Case Briefing and
Analysis) and Osburn v. Addington, 138 P. 603 (Kan. 1914). The two cases
involve similar issues.
a. What are
the similar issues?
b. What is
the subject matter of each case?
c. Draft a
statement of the law combining the holdings or rules from both cases.

Read the
following fact pattern and cases carefully. Draft a paragraph in which you
synthesize the holdings of the cases. The issue that you will address is
provided as well. Remember that proper synthesis requires you to relate the
authority to a common legal theme. The problem’s issue will guide you in
synthesizing the authority.
Facts On
November 29, 2014, Michael Jones purchased a used truck from Grimy’s Auto and
Truck Service. At the time of the purchase, Grimy’s stated that the engine was
completely overhauled and consisted of rebuilt and reconditioned parts, that
all parts were guaranteed, and that invoices for all new parts would be
provided. On December 13, 2015, after using the truck for over one year, Jones
discovered that several engine parts were not rebuilt or reconditioned and that
other engine parts were defective. These defects caused the truck to break
down, resulting in lost wages and lost profits for Jones. Jones made repairs to
the truck on December 13, 2015, December 16, 2015, and December 31, 2015. Jones
did not attempt to return the truck and did not notify Grimy’s that the truck
was defective. The truck is currently disabled in Columbus, Ohio. Jones wants
to sue Grimy’s for damages for breach of contract. Issue Whether Jones
continued to use the truck for more than a reasonable time after noticing the
defects and failed to properly reject the truck and to notify Grimy’s as to the
defects.
Case A A
buyer of goods must alert the seller as soon as he discovers that the goods are
not as agreed on. A buyer must rescind a sales contract as soon as he discovers
the breach or after he has had a reasonable time for examination. The buyer
waives the right to rescind a contract for the sale of goods by continuing to
use allegedly defective goods for more than a reasonable time.
Case B To
meet the requirements of an effective rejection, the buyer must reject the
goods within a reasonable time and reasonably notify the seller.

Write an
IRAC paragraph based on the following facts, issue, and statutes.
Facts
Ms. Jones
was waiting to get off the commuter train in the train’s vestibule. The
commuter train pulled into the station and Ms. Jones descended the stairs to
disembark from the train. The conductor exited the train first to watch the
passengers exit the train and then signal to close the doors and for the train
to start rolling. Ms. Jones was carrying her briefcase which had a long strap.
As Ms. Jones exited the train the briefcase strap was behind her. The train
doors shut with Ms. Jones on the platform but with the briefcase strap still
inside the door. The train dragged Ms. Jones about 10 feet and she suffered a
broken shoulder. The issue you have to consider is whether the conductor’s
negligence by signaling for the train to start was the proximate cause of Ms.
Jones’s broken shoulder. The issue that you should focus on is whether the
conductor’s failure to see that Ms. Jones’s briefcase strap, was inside the
door as he signaled for the train to start moving, is the proximate cause of
her broken shoulder. Statutes: Chapter 131 Nowhere Revised Code §12 (2014). An
operator of a common carrier must perform regular inspections of all components
of the common carrier. Failure to do so constitutes negligence. The failure to
perform inspections and the resulting negligence will be considered the
proximate cause of all injuries occurring aboard a common carrier. Chapter 131
Nowhere Revised Code §14 (2014). It is the duty of an operator of a common
carrier to exercise additional care when dangers are foreseeable.

Write an
IRAC paragraph based on the following facts, issue, and cases.
Facts Ms.
Jones was waiting to get off the commuter train in the train’s vestibule. The
commuter train pulled into the station and Ms. Jones descended the stairs to
disembark from the train. The conductor exited the train first to watch the
passengers exit the train and then signal to close the doors and for the train
to start rolling. Ms. Jones was carrying her briefcase, which had a long strap.
As Ms. Jones exited the train the briefcase strap was behind her. The train
doors shut with Ms. Jones on the platform but with the briefcase strap still
inside the door. The train dragged Ms. Jones about 10 feet and she suffered a
broken shoulder. The issue you have to consider is whether the conductor’s
negligence by signaling for the train to start was the proximate cause of Ms.
Jones’s broken shoulder. The issue that you should focus your case synthesis on
is whether the conductor’s failure to see that Ms. Jones’s briefcase strap was
inside the door as he signaled for the train to start moving is the proximate
cause of her broken shoulder. Read the two cases: Smithers v. Atlantic City
Railroad, 12 Nowhere 2d 5 (2014). Mr. John Smith was injured on the Atlantic
City Railroad when the train lurched with great violence as it rounded a curve
on the track. The train was overcrowded. Smith was injured without fault on his
part. The motorman drove the overcrowded car too fast around the curve, so as
to cause it to give a severe lurch. Where a passenger train is overcrowded and
the employees operating the train know of such condition, it is their duty to
exercise additional care commensurate with the dangers. The motorman knew of
the overcrowded conditions and failed to exercise additional care when rounding
the curve. Mr. Smith was injured when the train lurched as it rounded the curve
because he fell onto another passenger. The motorman’s failure to exercise the
requisite care was the proximate cause of Mr. Smith’s injuries. Blue v.
Boardwalk Railroad, 15 Nowhere 2d 9 (2000). Mr. Robert Blue was blinded by a
sudden gust of steam and fell underneath the train he was in the process of
boarding at the station; Mr. Blue’s arm was severed by the train as it started
to leave the station. Regular inspection of couplings is a required duty of
conductors. Failure to inspect the couplings for leaks is a negligent act on
the part of the defendant. Railroad’s allowing steam to escape was the
proximate cause of Mr. Blue’s injury, since a man of ordinary prudence could
have foreseen that escaping steam would result from leaks in the uninspected
couplings. The consequence of the escaping steam, due to the railroad’s failure
to inspect the couplings, resulted in a foreseeable injury to a passenger or
person waiting on the platform.

Review the
following paragraph. Note the issue, the rule, the application of law to facts,
and the conclusion.
An important
factor in determining whether a funeral home is a nuisance is the suitability
of its location. “Funeral homes are generally located on the edge of purely
residential but not predominantly residential areas.” Bauman v. Piser
Undertakers Co., 34 Ill. App. 2d 145, 148, 180 N.E.2d 705, 708 (App. Ct. 1962).
A carefully run funeral home may be located on a property zoned for business at
the edge of a residential neighborhood. Id. The funeral home in this case is
located in a predominantly rural area. It is outside the boundary lines of the
Up and Coming Acres subdivision. It is a lawful business located on a parcel
zoned for business. The funeral home is in a suitable location.

Write an
IRAC paragraph using the following information. You need not include all the
information. The issue is whether the plaintiff can show that his attorney’s
failure to attend hearings was excusable neglect. A number of the text blocks
below contain statements of rules. Other text blocks include legally
significant facts. In some paragraphs, conclusions have been drawn for you.
Combine the rules where necessary and form an IRAC paragraph for the issue.
Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) provides for relief from judgment if plaintiffs can show that a
mistake was made or that there was excusable neglect on the part of their
attorney. Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy, granted in only exceptional
cases. Harold Washington Party v. Cook City. Illinois Democratic Party, 984
F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1993). In this case, the plaintiff’s attorney, Mark Adly,
missed four court-set status hearings. He failed to appear. He failed to answer
motions. Court status hearings are routinely held every three months. Adly
claims he did not have any notice of the hearings. Adly knew status proceedings
normally were held. He attended depositions in this matter. Court records show
that he was sent notices of the hearings to the address Adly says is correct.
“Excusable neglect may warrant relief under Rule 60(b).” Zuelzke Tool &
Eng’g v. Anderson Die Casting, 925 F.2d 226 (7th Cir. 1991). In this case, the
defendant relied on a third party who told them to refrain from further action
because efforts were being made to have the defendant removed as defendant. Id.
at 228. Anderson did not answer any complaints or file any pleadings. Id. The
lack of response led the court to enter a default judgment against the company.
Id. at 229. The district court refused the motion to vacate, saying that the
defendant had voluntarily chosen not to control its fate in the litigation. Id.