Essay on Legal Writing Graded Project 1

Mr. Potbelly holds a garage sale at his home. Mr. Slim Jim stops by the sale and upon noticing a rare piece of art pottery offers a price of $100 for the art that is marked $250. Mr. Potbelly accepts Mr. Slim Jim’s offer. Mr. Potbelly informs Mr. Slim Jim he is selling his home because he is moving up north because he has lost his job. Mr. Slim Jim asks how much he is selling it for and Mr. Potbelly informs him he is thinking $75,000. Mr. Slim Jim offers him $70,000 cash for the property which Mr. Potbelly immediately accepts the offer. Mr. Slim Jim informs Mr. Potbelly that he will be back in one hour with a cashiers’ check made payable to Mr. Potbelly. Mr. Potbelly says “Great!” and that while Mr. Slim Jim

Symmes purchase 300,000 acres of land only public land survey north to south east to west on magnetic

1) Since the injured plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, why is Ford being sued for failing to test the seatbelt sleeve?

This letter is to inform you, that your tax appeal hearing has been scheduled for March 6, 2005, at 10:30 a.m. The hearing will be held at the County Office building located at 211 Race Road. The court room is located on the 5th floor.

As Privy Council held in the case of "Wagon Mound (No 1)" that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant should not be responsible for losses that are ‘too remote’ from the breach. It is obviously that the university could foresee that Brad have to quit his job to finish the degree and also need to pay for the fees.

The agreement did not include any personal property, but it did cover: " All buildings, plumbing, heating, lighting fixtures, storm sash, shades, blinds, awnings, shrubbery, and plants". The purchasers took possession on June 14, 1946, and discovered that certain articles which had been on the premises at the

This story is replete with fascinating facts and the intricacies that are inherent in the facts of the case make for a great story.The baseball bat was broken from the outset when it was bought by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant should have to return the baseball bat and pay the money back to the plaintiff that plaintiff paid for said bat. The plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken because, since as soon as the defendant used the bat to play baseball, the bat shattered into a million pieces. Shattering into a million pieces certainly violates the implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC 2-314). No Industria De Calcados Martini Ltda. v.

• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.

     The Keeneland Association on August 29, 1935 purchased 147 1/2 acres of Keene’s property for $130,000 in cash and 10,000 in preferred stock at par value. This beautiful property included a

An old home sat on what is now Lots 32-33. The Browns kept horses on the east side of the property. Located nearby was a circa-1951 horse barn and a water tower for the citrus groves. Mr. Brown also dug out a large pond near clumps of cypress trees.

to fill in a 50­acre mill pond area now known as  Haymarket Square area.  Land

Respondent has realized he is gay and has met a male companion who doesn’t reside with him presently, but someday might. Chastity testified that she feels weird around Respondent’s male companion. Psychologist, Dr.

This particular property is one of the most unique places you can find in southern Indiana. The ranch is approximately 120 acres in size and has a 25 acre, 9-hole par-3 golf course that is surrounded by a grape vineyard that sits closer to the main lodge on the property. There are four main facilities on the property total. These facilities include a main lodge which is a fully restored and

1. The issue is whether public school officials have the authority to perform strip searches of students in suspicion of hiding illegal drugs.

The 14th Amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.