The court will rule in favor of Bruce's Garden Mart and in favor of the gardener. Krider has been sending her gardener to Bruce's on many occasions to purchase the items on credit and she is now backing out saying that she did not allow him to do this. Not only is this follow-up case false, but Krider is hurting her case by lying in court. Krider is bound by the ratification and responsibility of her previous implication to the gardener that it is okay to purchase items at Bruce's Garden Mart and she is responsible for the unsettled
The Alison Peterson v. Grocery Depot Inc tort lawsuit is about an incident that occurs in countless grocery stores across the United States. Peterson is alleging Grocery Depot Inc. was negligent in their duty of care to her as a business visitor. Grocery Depot Inc. as a property owner has a legal duty to maintain the grocery store premises in a safe and hazard free condition or to warn a customer about any situation that could be dangerous. Peterson alleges Grocery Depot Inc breached this duty, which resulted in her slip and fall.
Defendants, Mark and William Schenkly, have not satisfied the elements required to invoke the shopkeeper’s privilege defense. Conduct by the suspect which lead a shopkeeper to believe that the suspect is attempting to steal is enough to establish reasonable cause. In assessing reasonable cause to detain, Arizona courts consider whether appearances are sufficient to justify a shopkeeper’s belief is reasonable. Kon v. Skaggs Drug Center, Inc., 563 P.2d 920, 922 (1977); Gau v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc., 901 P.2d 455, 459 (1995). Defendant Mark Schenkly did not see Mr. Flynn take beer from the cooler, nor did he observe that the beer was missing from the cooler. The statute setting forth the requirements for asserting the shopkeeper’s privilege provides that detainment may only take place for the sole purposes of questioning or
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
Rush Johnson Farms Inc., brought suit against Missouri Farmers Association Inc., (MFA) for $4,094.60 which Johnson claimed to be the balance due for soybeans sold to MFA. This case presents for the first time in Missouri the question of
4. McDonald’s was liable for Mr. Faverty as per the jury’s decision. McDonald’s knew or had reason to know the number of hours Theurer had been working. It had a limit on working
2. Facts: Plaintiff Irene George (P) is filing suit against Defendant Jordan Marsh Co. (D) for mental anguish and emotional distress which resulted in two heart attacks. D sold goods on credit to P’s emancipated son, who purchased them on P’s account. D alleged that P stated in writing that she would pay the debts (which she did not incur), even though it is understood that P did not make this guarantee. D then attempted to intimidate P into paying these debts she did not owe by calling her at late hours, by mailing her bills, by sending her letters stating late charges were being added on and that her credit had been revoked, and by numerous other tactics. P suffered great
In the present action, the trial judge found Mr. Shoemaker in default of his obligation in the amount of $52,000.00. This finding satisfies the trial judge’s obligation under Md. Rule 15-207(e)(4)(A). The trial judge, however, continued to render an opinion of the legal relationship of the parties going forward under the consent order.
In connection with his development of a full time practice in Ronceverte, Defendant requested Plaintiff to allow him agree to his continuation of his practice continue performing surgeries one day per week in Beckley. Defendant contends that this request implicitly contemplated that any income derived from his Beckley surgeries would be excluded from his “Cash Collections.” By contrast, Plaintiff contends that it understood Defendant was only seeking a clarification about whether his performance of surgeries once a week in Beckley would be allowed in view of his obligation to establish a full time practice in
The court reasoned that the faxed delivery is sufficient enough to renew the lease. Justice Kauger delivered the majority opinion that examined the elements of this binding agreement. In this examination, the court used a two-step analysis to determine whether it would be fair to rule
There are many defendants in this case. First and foremost Dale, the loss prevention officer for Wal-Mart, is a defendant because he intentionally restrained Bob against his will and the restraint was unlawful. Dale also failed to follow company rules; Dale was supposed to watch a video that explained how to catch and deal with thieves but decided not to watch the video. The second defendant would be Dale’s supervisor. The supervisor recorded a pass on an exam that dale did not take. The exam Dale failed to write was based on the video that Dale did not watch. The third defendant would be Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart assumes liability because they could be at fault for not properly training staff. Bob would want to take action on
In Death of a Salesman, Arthur Miller uses motifs and symbols to express some of the problems of the main character, Willy. Miller motivates Willy to start a garden in the backyard of his apartment, even though the garden won’t grow. This showed Willy to be the type who does not accept defeat, as he believes he can grow a garden, but to the reader, it’s obvious that he can’t. Although filled with the desire to grow a garden in order to start anew, Willy is unable to do so due to his apartment and his thoughts.
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
To sum up, based on the law of negligence, the issues and precedents, Rebecca could win this case by legal process. Because the defendant ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant owns a duty of care to Rebecca, the restaurant has breached that duty of care;
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.
The decision in the case focuses on a request by a large and powerful franchisee to eliminate the salad bar in a downtown Roy Rogers location. This decision seems