After being drafted by the Indianapolis Dolts (a professional football team), All-Big One Conference offensive tackle Les Holdem contracted with sports agent Harry Shifty to represent him in contract negotiations with the Dolts. Vic Amoral, a sports agent who was in competition with Shifty, later persuaded Holdem to discharge Shifty as his agent and to retain Amoral instead. Amoral then negotiated, on Holdem's behalf, a lucrative contract with the Dolts. For doing so, Amoral was paid handsomely by Holdem under the terms of the Holdem-Amoral agency agreement, though not quite as much as Shifty would have received under the repudiated Holdem-Shifty agency agreement if Shifty had negotiated a similar deal for Holdem with the Dolts. Shifty has sued Amoral for interference with contractual relations. Which of the following, if true, would be Amoral's best argument for avoiding liability?
That he was aiding Holdem by offering a better deal than that agreed to by Shifty and Holdem.
That in approaching Holdem, he was merely attempting to advance his competitive position in the sports agent market.
That the agency agreement between Holdem and Shifty was terminable at the will of either party.
That all Shifty lost was the prospect of profiting from negotiating a contract on Holdem's behalf with the Dolts.
Doris locks Phil in a first floor room. Phil sues Doris for false imprisonment. Which of the following is true?
Doris would escape liability if she let Phil out of the room after one hour.
According to some courts, Doris would escape liability if Phil slept through the entire period that the door was locked and thus was unaware that he was being detained.
Even if Phil could easily have escaped through an open window, Doris still is liable.
Doris would not be liable if Phil could have escaped by traveling two miles through a narrow, filthy, rat-infested sewer line that periodically floods with water.
1. C- This is the only legal argument as if the agency is terminable at will, no agency ...