Case on Privity of Contract

A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.

EC- 1.7 (A), ABA 1.5(A)- Legal Assistant, Carl, did not introduce himself to Jane as a legal assistant. He simply conducted the interview without properly identifying himself. Jane could have been under the false impression that Carl was also a licensed attorney. Especially since Carl also gave Jane unauthorized legal advice when he advised her about not reporting certain incomes to improve the quality of her case.

Issue: One day, Kelly Mala went to Crown Bay Marina to buy some fuel for his boat, so he asked a Crown Bay Marina’s attendant to watch his boat while he purchased fuel. However, when he returned, mala saw his boat’s tank was overflowing and fuel was spilling into the boat and into the water. Then Mala began cleaning up the fuel, but as he pulled away from the marina, his boat’s engine caught fire and exploded. Mala was thrown into the water and severely burning. His boat was unsalvageable. Therefore, Kelly Mala sued Crown Bay Marina after his boat exploded.

Joy Salmon was seeking damages for George Brown who she cared for while as a nurse and his estate. Joy Salmon hired Virgina Atkinson as her lawyer in this case. Joy Salmon entered a contingency contract with her lawyer Virgina Atkinson. This contract stated if Joy Salmons case for Geroge Brown's damages did not end in her favor she was not obligated to pay attorney fees to Virgina Atkinson however if the case was in favor of Joy Salmon she was required to Virginia Atkinson for her services.  Attorney Virgina Atkinson billed Joy Salmon approximately $7200 for her services and Joy Salmon refused to pay the bill for Virginia Atkinson's services as an attorney. Virgina Atkinson was billing Joy Salmon $150 a hour for approximately forty eight hours of service to the case. Virginia Atkinson filed a lawsuit against Joy

The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker’s remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap-filler, and there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts.” Along with her third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

 (b)   If Silverline are found to be negligent, for what losses would Emma be able to claim

The Plaintiff will be able to move forward with her suit against the Defendants in the areas of heightened-risk and negligence, here is why:

15–1. Liquidated Damages. Carnack contracts to sell his house and lot to Willard for $100,000. The terms of the contract call for Willard to make a deposit of 10 percent of the purchase price as a down payment. The terms further stipulate that if the buyer breaches the contract, Carnack will retain the deposit as liquidated damages. Willard makes the deposit, but because her expected financing of the $90,000 balance falls through, she breaches the contract. Two weeks later, Carnack sells the house and lot to Balkova for $105,000. Willard demands her $10,000 back, but Carnack refuses, claiming that Willard’s breach and the contract terms entitle him to keep the deposit. Discuss who is correct. (See Damages.)

I reviewed the case of Mr. Sam Superstar and Dr. Peters, in regards to possible proceedings and to which party would be at fault. I have found that in this case both parties could be found at fault in many different violations, both civil and criminal. Therefore there could be possible proceedings brought against both parties. It shows many aspects, of many, violations of laws. These violations range from simple breach of contract to theft of property. We will need to look into the violations more in depth. Following you will find a summary of my findings.

Regional Products, Inc., hires Sam to act as its agent. Tina sues Regional for Sam’s negligent conduct. Regional’s right to sue Sam for an equal amount of damages is the right of

case brief---Gregory, a comedy writer, entered into a contract with Wessel, a comedian. The contract provided that Gregory would provide Wessel with a 15 minute monologue for his upcoming appearance on the comedy hour and Wessel will pay $250 to Gregory. All performers could make $500 per appearance on the comedy hour. and when Wessel was scheduled to aper on the comedy hour, Gregory informed him that he was unable to provide the monologue, because last time Wessel was asked to make special guest appearances at three local comedy clubs performance during the comedy hour. and Wessel bought lawsuit to Gregory for beach of contract and request damages of $1250.

Acceptance-This basically means that the terms of the offer have been clearly understood and agreed to through consent and assent and at no time will the terms be changed.

The following case American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Kennedy & Crawford, 103 Va. 171 (Va.1904) it is expressed that; where the consideration for the promise of one party is the promise of the other party, there must be absolute mutuality of engagement, so that each party has the right to hold the other to a positive agreement. Both parties must be bound or neither is bound. A party making a promise is bound to nothing until a promisee, within a reasonable time, engages to do, or else do or begins to do, the thing which is the condition of the first promise. Until such engagement or such doing, the promisor may withdraw his promise, because there is no mutuality, and therefore no consideration for it.

Acceptance. This basically means that the terms of the offer have been clearly understood and agreed to through consent

The exculpatory clause can be enforceable in this case because she agreed the release of liability contract knowingly. In other words, from that time, when she voluntarily signed on the “General Release of Claim”, she became responsible for all her own negligence. In addition, there is no duty to the public involved, and fraud mentioned in the case, therefore, the lawsuit should be barred by the exculpatory