Please answer each question below and state the following: legal issue, legal rule, analysis.
Q1. Paul Gett is a well-known, wealthy financial expert living in the city of Torris. Adam Wade, Gett's friend, tells Timothy Brown that he is Gett's agent for the purchase of rare coins. Wade even shows Brown a local newspaper clipping mentioning Gett's interest in coin collecting. Brown, knowing of Wade's friendship with Gett, contracts with Wade to sell a rare coin valued at $25,000 to Gett. Wade takes the coin and disappears with it. On the payment due date, Brown seeks to collect from Gett, claiming that Wade's agency made Gett liable. Gett does not deny that Wade was a friend, but he claims that Wade was never his agent. Discuss fully whether an agency was in existence at the time the contract for the rare coin was made.
Q2. Packer owned and operated a fruit cannery in Southton, Illinois. He stored a substantial amount of finished canned goods in a warehouse in East St. Louis, Illinois, owned and operated by Alden, in order to have goods readily available for the St. Louis market. On March 1, he had 10,000 cans of peaches and 5,000 cans of apples in storage with Alden. On the day named, he borrowed $5,000 from Alden, giving Alden his promissory note for this amount due June 1 together with a letter authorizing Alden, in the event the note was not paid at maturity, to sell any or all of his goods in storage, pay the indebtedness, and account to him for any surplus. Packer died on June 2 without having paid the note. On June 8, Alden told Taylor, a wholesale food distributor, that he had for sale as agent of the owner 10,000 cans of peaches and 5,000 cans of apples. Taylor said he would take the peaches and would decide later about the apples. A contract for the sale of 10,000 cans of peaches for $6,000 was thereupon signed "Alden, agent for Packer, seller; Taylor, buyer." Both Alden and Taylor knew of the death of Packer. Delivery of the peaches and payment were made on June 10. On June 11, Alden and Taylor signed a similar contract covering the 5,000 cans of apples, delivery and payment to be made June 30. On June 23, Packer's executor, having learned of these contracts, wrote Alden and Taylor stating that Alden had no authority to make the contracts, demanding that Taylor return the peaches, and directing Alden not to deliver the apples. Discuss the correctness of the contentions of Packer's executor.
Q3. Mary is the owner of a retail fish marketing business. Her managing agent borrowed $3,500 from Stephen on Mary's behalf, for use in Mary's business. Mary paid $200 on the alleged loan and on several other occasions told Stephen that the full balance owed would eventually be paid. Mary then disclaimed liability on the debt, asserting that she had not authorized her agent to enter into the loan agreement. Stephen brought this action to collect on the loan. Decision?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 8:52 am ad1c9bdddf
1. There is no agency. Friendship is not agency. Showing a newspaper clipping is not agency. There was no proven relationship that would require Gett to pay for the coin because he did not authorize nor agree to make payment. There was no existing contract with Gett's ...
The expert states the legal issues, legal rules and analysis of three case studies.
Case Analysis with Rational Legal Concepts and Rulings
I am in need of fresh new ideals on how to write a case analysis, each analysis should contain the Main and or central issue to be decided, Rational use of legal concepts that will help decide the case, and a Ruling, what should happen in the cases. Below are 3 sample cases please apply all the above to the sample cases. I will be able to read your responses, and get an understanding of how to write my own case analysis.
1. Brian Short v. State of Florida
Brian and Jennifer were in love. They had been high school sweethearts, and they planned to get married when they both graduated from Saint Leo University. However, there was one problem: Brian and Jennifer were both very short. Each stood less than five feet tall. The state of Florida had recently passed a law that prohibited two very short people from marrying. In defense of the law, the state asserted that in order to maintain dominance with the state university athletic programs (e.g. Gator football and basketball, Seminole football), the state had a legitimate interest in making sure that the children born in Florida would be as tall as possible. After all, football brings in so much money to the universities, which allows less financial strain on the state to support them. Further, bigger children are less likely to fall into small holes, and seat belts can fit them better; thus, this law would protect all the children of the state. This law was titled "Maintaining the size of our children" law. Brian and Jennifer have sued the state, claiming that the law is unconstitutional.
2. Michael v. University
Michael pulled an "all-nighter" studying for an important exam. He was exhausted the next day, and during the exam, performed "head-rotations" to loosen his cramped neck muscles. Dr. Pickett, who was proctoring the exam, saw him stretching and thought he was looking at the answer sheet of the student setting next to him. She took his exam and dismissed him from the classroom. She also told him that because of his cheating, he would automatically fail the class. The next day, Michael discovered that he had been dismissed from the University with no tuition refunds and that his transcripts had been deleted. Michael is suing the University claiming that the University's actions were unconstitutional and asking to be reinstated and to continue his education without penalty.
3. Taylor Lautner v. Taylor Swift
Taylor Swift was living in the same house with Taylor Lautner for three years. During that time, they both pursued independent acting and music careers, and each earned substantial income. They were as much in love as can be and shared many good times. They never pooled their financial resources into one account, and each paid their own expenses except for the rent, which they split down the middle. By mutual consent, they agreed that they had fallen out of love and were each interested in pursuing other relationships. After a short time, Mr. Lautner's acting roles dried up. He is now suing Ms. Swift for half of everything she earned while they were cohabitating together.