Cristina Rodriguez Fuentefria - Unit 2 Week 1 HW 2

.pdf

School

Florida International University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MISC

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

3

Uploaded by GrandWillpower13159

Cristina Rodriguez Fuentefria Unit 2 Week 1 HW 2 1. Read the case and prepare a case brief following the format presented here. The case brief should be uploaded onto the course shell. Case brief - Lewis v. Atlantic Discount Co. Citation: Lewis v. Atlantic Discount Co., 99 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957). Parties Plaintiff/Appellant: Joe Lewis, purchaser of an automobile under a conditional sales contract with Massey Motor Company. Defendant/Appellee: Atlantic Discount Company, a corporation assigned by Massey Motor Company to the conditional sales contract in which the appellant participated. Facts The appellant, Joe Lewis, purchased an automobile under a conditional sales contract with Massey Motor Company which was eventually assigned to Atlantic Discount Company, the appellee. Appellant failed to make the required payments and sought to make an arrangement with the appellee in order to catch up with the payments. The appellant was advised that return the car to the appellee to which the appellant responded that he did not have the car with him. After leaving the appellee’s office, the appellant returned to his car which had been parked approximately six blocks away, but before the appellant could drive away, two men who were agents of the appellee approached the vehicle. The first man, with his right hand in his coat
pocket and using his left hand to open the door, entered the front passenger seat beside the appellant while the second man was directed to sit in the back of the car. The first man in the passenger seat ordered that the appellant return the car saying, “Drive this car back over to the place over there.” After a brief pause, the second man reiterates the first man’s order saying, threatening manner in which the appellant alleges the two men spoke to him, he complies by driving back to the office of the appellee and handing one of the men the keys to the car. Issue(s) Whether or not the lower court was in error by granting a directed verdict for defendant, thereby resulting in the involuntary non-suit as to Count 1 of the second amended complaint alleging false imprisonment? Arguments of parties Plaintiff(s) Argument(s): Appellant declares false imprisonment in their non-suit saying the manner in which the car was recuperated was not legal. Defendant(s) Argument(s): Appellant argues that he was delinquent in his car payment and therefore the appellee was entitled to take possession of the vehicle under trespass to property. Decision of the Court Judgment reversed for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reasoning of the Court Associate Judge Geo Patten quoted from a related Supreme Court case, Johnson v. Weiner, 155
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help