Can you please answer these explaining the issue, rule/law, application and conclusion that can be drawn? Thanks.
4. Neil owned a violin that he wanted to sell and Linda wanted to purchase. Both parties thought the violin to be a rare Stradivarius violin. They agree on a price of $200,000. Later, it was discovered that the violin was just an ordinary violin, the value of which was only $10,000. Linda sues to recover her money.
5. Jerry is a blackjack dealer in a Las Vegas casino. One evening, as he dealt, a patron became more and more abusive, insulting Jerry, using profanity, and finally making personal insults about Jerry's appearance. Jerry became very angry and hit the patron. The patron sued both Jerry and the casino. Is the casino liable?
6. Robert owns and operates a dry cleaning store as a sole proprietorship. Robert needs more money for the business, so Janet agrees to lend him the money. Janet is to receive one-half of the net income of the dry cleaning store until the loan and interest is paid. A few months later, Robert refuses to make the agreed upon payment to Janet. Janet files suit for dissolution of partnership, claiming that she is a partner.
Let's go through your questions one by one.
4) This problem almost exactly mirrors the case of Smith v. Zimbalist (1934). Here's how you might break it down:
Issue: Is the mistake as to the maker of the violins a material mistake of fact (rather than just quality) which would justify recission?
Holding: Yes. The contract is rescinded. The violin would be returned along with the price paid.
Reasoning: The court reasoned that the a copy violin is not the same item as a Stradivarious violin. They were items of a different identity, not merely quality. Note that since the buyer was the person who identified the violin initially as a Stradivarius, he originated the mistake of fact. This could easily have gone the other way by arguing that both ...
Case study conclusions are drawn.