Mike Valentino

Please read the hypothetical bellow, I provided my personal answer so if it's correct just say it is and thanks for taking the time to read it. If it's not please correct me or help lead me to the correct answer. (i already posted it prior but i did not add some extra things and want to make sure, also improved my answer)

Hilary had just finished grocery shopping at a large grocery chain. She takes her shopping cart with her groceries out to her car and unloads her groceries. A friend sees her and starts up a conversation. Unfortunately, for hillary the grocery store is at the top of a hill, and the grocery store did not fence in the parking lot in anyway. Hillary gets lost in her conversation with her buddy. A gust of wind comes up sending the shopping cart down the hill. The cart then rolls into the street and keeps heading downhill where it bangs into a small weber BBQ and knocks its top off. The top of the weber bbw rolls into the street where a car driven by Bubba swerves to avoid it. Bubba then crashes into a light pole. The light pole then falls onto Jackis car, which was parked in her driveway. Hilary isn't terribly wealthy, but the grocery store chain has money. Do you think the grocery store was negligent? discuss the concepts of duty, breach of duty, actual causation, legal causation, and the elements of associated with each concept.

My answer- the grocery store's duty in the parking lot is solely to maintain the safety of it's customers but it's the customer's responsibility to watch over their purchases once they leave the store.. In many major stores they also have signs stating that they're not responsible for any damage done to cars from the carts.

But also the supermarket and hilary can be off the hook.. wind which is an unforceable event caused the top of the grill to roll so neither of them can be held liable.. , Bubba's insurance will cover Jackis' car. But if not, she can go after the city for putting in light poles that are not strong enough to withstand a little bump from Bubba's car..thanks to A Hunch for contributing to that last part...

What if the shopping cart wound up on the street where the weber bbq was a result of a gust of wind that blew it onto that street? would you get the same answer?

I would have to say no, right there since the cart was the one that went into the street under supervision of hillary, she would definitely be on the hook instead of last one caused by wing which she and the supermarket can get out of..

please correct me if i'm wrong

Please read the hypothetical bellow, I provided my personal answer so if it's correct just say it is and thanks for taking the time to read it. If it's not please correct me or help lead me to the correct answer. (i already posted it prior but i did not add some extra things and want to make sure, also improved my answer)

Hilary had just finished grocery shopping at a large grocery chain. She takes her shopping cart with her groceries out to her car and unloads her groceries. A friend sees her and starts up a conversation. Unfortunately, for hillary the grocery store is at the top of a hill, and the grocery store did not fence in the parking lot in anyway. Hillary gets lost in her conversation with her buddy. A gust of wind comes up sending the shopping cart down the hill. The cart then rolls into the street and keeps heading downhill where it bangs into a small weber BBQ and knocks its top off. The top of the weber bbw rolls into the street where a car driven by Bubba swerves to avoid it. Bubba then crashes into a light pole. The light pole then falls onto Jackis car, which was parked in her driveway. Hilary isn't terribly wealthy, but the grocery store chain has money. Do you think the grocery store was negligent? discuss the concepts of duty, breach of duty, actual causation, legal causation, and the elements of associated with each concept.

My answer- the grocery store's duty in the parking lot is solely to maintain the safety of it's customers but it's the customer's responsibility to watch over their purchases once they leave the store.. In many major stores they also have signs stating that they're not responsible for any damage done to cars from the carts.

But also the supermarket and hilary can be off the hook.. wind which is an unforceable event caused the top of the grill to roll so neither of them can be held liable.. , Bubba's insurance will cover Jackis' car. But if not, she can go after the city for putting in light poles that are not strong enough to withstand a little bump from Bubba's car..thanks to A Hunch for contributing to that last part...

What if the shopping cart wound up on the street where the weber bbq was a result of a gust of wind that blew it onto that street? would you get the same answer?

I would have to say no, right there since the cart was the one that went into the street under supervision of hillary, she would definitely be on the hook instead of last one caused by wing which she and the supermarket can get out of..

please correct me if i'm wrong

Please read the hypothetical bellow, I provided my personal answer so if it's correct just say it is and thanks for taking the time to read it. If it's not please correct me or help lead me to the correct answer.

Hilary had just finished grocery shopping at a large grocery chain. She takes her shopping cart with her groceries out to her car and unloads her groceries. A friend sees her and starts up a conversation. Unfortunately, for hillary the grocery store is at the top of a hill, and the grocery store did not fence in the parking lot in anyway. Hillary gets lost in her conversation with her buddy. A gust of wind comes up sending the shopping cart down the hill. The cart then rolls into the street and keeps heading downhill where it bangs into a small weber BBQ and knocks its top off. The top of the weber bbw rolls into the street where a car driven by Bubba swerves to avoid it. Bubba then crashes into a light pole. The light pole then falls onto Jackis car, which was parked in her driveway. Hilary isn't terribly wealthy, but the grocery store chain has money. Do you think the grocery store was negligent?

My answer- the grocery store's duty in the parking lot is solely to maintain the safety of it's customers but it's the customer's responsibility to watch over their purchases once they leave the store.. In many major stores they also have signs stating that they're not responsible for any damage done to cars from the carts.

My answer-

Please read the hypothetical bellow, I provided my personal answer so if it's correct just say it is and thanks for taking the time to read it. If it's not please correct me or help lead me to the correct answer.

Hilary had just finished grocery shopping at a large grocery chain. She takes her shopping cart with her groceries out to her car and unloads her groceries. A friend sees her and starts up a conversation. Unfortunately, for hillary the grocery store is at the top of a hill, and the grocery store did not fence in the parking lot in anyway. Hillary gets lost in her conversation with her buddy. A gust of wind comes up sending the shopping cart down the hill. The cart then rolls into the street and keeps heading downhill where it bangs into a small weber BBQ and knocks its top off. The top of the weber bbw rolls into the street where a car driven by Bubba swerves to avoid it. Bubba then crashes into a light pole. The light pole then falls onto Jackis car, which was parked in her driveway. Hilary isn't terribly wealthy, but the grocery store chain has money. Do you think the grocery store was negligent?

My answer- the grocery store's duty in the parking lot is solely to maintain the safety of it's customers but it's the customer's responsibility to watch over their purchases once they leave the store.. In many major stores they also have signs stating that they're not responsible for any damage done to cars from the carts.

My answer-

In illinois the legislative branch through the joint committee on administrative rules, and the ability to overrule the executive branch. 1) is that ability in violation of the separation of powers inherent in the constitution?; 2) we would be unlikely for situation to occur with the legislative branch form we both are overrule the executive branch with respect to a rule that the executive branch has proposed. Discuss....

In illinois the legislative branch through the joint committee on administrative rules, and the ability to overrule the executive branch. 1) is that ability in violation of the separation of powers inherent in the constitution?; 2) we would be unlikely for situation to occur with the legislative branch form we both are overrule the executive branch with respect to a rule that the executive branch has proposed. Discuss....

In illinois the legislative branch through the joint committee on administrative rules, and the ability to overrule the executive branch. 1) is that ability in violation of the separation of powers inherent in the constitution?; 2) we would be unlikely for situation to occur with the legislative branch form we both are overrule the executive branch with respect to a rule that the executive branch has proposed. Discuss....

At a holiday gathering, Uncle Megabucks gets up from the table and is very proud of Junior, who just graduated from Rich Central high school with a 4.0 average. Uncle Megabucks tells everyone around the table that if: Junior gets his bachelor's degree in four years; does not drink or do drugs during that time; and gets into law school, he will pay for law school. Of course, Junior upholds his part of the bargain, but then has a falling out with Uncle Megabucks. Will junior be successful in a suit against Uncle Megabucks to pay for his law school education? Discuss the doctrine of promissory estoppel, its elements and ANY DEFENSES.

The law firm of Traystman, Coric and Keramidas represented Andrew Daigle in a divorce in Norwich, Connecticut. Scott McGowan, an attorney with the firm, handled the two-day trial. After the first day of the trial, McGowan told Daigle to sign a promissory note in the amount of $26,973, which represented the amount that Daigle then owed to the firm, or McGowan would withdraw from the case, and Daigle would be forced to get another attorney or to continue the trial by himself. Daigle said that he wanted another attorney, Martin Rutchik, to see the note. McGowan urged Daigle to sign it and assured him that a copy would be sent to Rutchik. Feeling that he had no other choice, Daigle signed the note. When he did not pay, the law firm filed a suit in a Connecticut state court against him. Daigle asserted that the note was unenforceable because he had signed it under duress. What are the requirements for the use of duress as a defense to a contract? Are the requirements met here? What might the law firm argue in response to Daigle's assertion?

Does this hypothetical meet the requirements for duress?

what might the law firm argue?

Might daigle also rely on a principle?

The law firm of Traystman, Coric and Keramidas represented Andrew Daigle in a divorce in Norwich, Connecticut. Scott McGowan, an attorney with the firm, handled the two-day trial. After the first day of the trial, McGowan told Daigle to sign a promissory note in the amount of $26,973, which represented the amount that Daigle then owed to the firm, or McGowan would withdraw from the case, and Daigle would be forced to get another attorney or to continue the trial by himself. Daigle said that he wanted another attorney, Martin Rutchik, to see the note. McGowan urged Daigle to sign it and assured him that a copy would be sent to Rutchik. Feeling that he had no other choice, Daigle signed the note. When he did not pay, the law firm filed a suit in a Connecticut state court against him. Daigle asserted that the note was unenforceable because he had signed it under duress. What are the requirements for the use of duress as a defense to a contract? Are the requirements met here? What might the law firm argue in response to Daigle's assertion?

Does this hypothetical meet the requirements for duress?

what might the law firm argue?

Might daigle also rely on a principle?

The law firm of Traystman, Coric and Keramidas represented Andrew Daigle in a divorce in Norwich, Connecticut. Scott McGowan, an attorney with the firm, handled the two-day trial. After the first day of the trial, McGowan told Daigle to sign a promissory note in the amount of $26,973, which represented the amount that Daigle then owed to the firm, or McGowan would withdraw from the case, and Daigle would be forced to get another attorney or to continue the trial by himself. Daigle said that he wanted another attorney, Martin Rutchik, to see the note. McGowan urged Daigle to sign it and assured him that a copy would be sent to Rutchik. Feeling that he had no other choice, Daigle signed the note. When he did not pay, the law firm filed a suit in a Connecticut state court against him. Daigle asserted that the note was unenforceable because he had signed it under duress. What are the requirements for the use of duress as a defense to a contract? Are the requirements met here? What might the law firm argue in response to Daigle's assertion?

Does this hypothetical meet the requirements for duress?

what might the law firm argue?

Might daigle also rely on a principle?

Below i have my opinion/answer. review it if it's correct let me know if now please correct me

MY ANSWER= The court concluded that Daigle signed the note under duress, making the note unenforceable, and on the law firm's appeal, a state intermediate appellate court upheld this judgment. The appellate court explained, "For a party to demonstrate duress, it must prove [1] a wrongful act or threat [2] that left the victim no reasonable alternative, and [3] to which the victim in fact acceded, and that [4] the resulting transaction was unfair to the victim," The wrongful conduct "must induce a fearful state of mind in the other party, which makes it impossible for the party to exercise his own free will." The law firm argued that it honestly believed it was entitled to $26,873, but the court was "convinced that the purpose of having [Daigle] sign the note . . . was to guarantee payment to the firm and to prevent the [divorce] court from examining whether or not the fee was reasonable." The wrongful act was that "McGowan threatened to withdraw after the first day of trial if [Daigle] did not sign the note." Daigle "was presented with the note and the threat that accompanied it after the first day of a two day trial. [His] request to show the note to Rutchik before signing it was rebuffed by McGowan." Daigle "was left with no reasonable alternative but to sign the note." Finally, Daigle's act of signing the note was unfair because it was presented to him after the first day of his trial, "when he especially depended on the plaintiff's services, and he was forced to sign it before an independent attorney could examine it for him."

Is that correct?

The law firm of Traystman, Coric and Keramidas represented Andrew Daigle in a divorce in Norwich, Connecticut. Scott McGowan, an attorney with the firm, handled the two-day trial. After the first day of the trial, McGowan told Daigle to sign a promissory note in the amount of $26,973, which represented the amount that Daigle then owed to the firm, or McGowan would withdraw from the case, and Daigle would be forced to get another attorney or to continue the trial by himself. Daigle said that he wanted another attorney, Martin Rutchik, to see the note. McGowan urged Daigle to sign it and assured him that a copy would be sent to Rutchik. Feeling that he had no other choice, Daigle signed the note. When he did not pay, the law firm filed a suit in a Connecticut state court against him. Daigle asserted that the note was unenforceable because he had signed it under duress. What are the requirements for the use of duress as a defense to a contract? Are the requirements met here? What might the law firm argue in response to Daigle's assertion?

Does this hypothetical meet the requirements for duress?

what might the law firm argue?

Might daigle also rely on a principle?

Below i have my opinion/answer. review it if it's correct let me know if now please correct me

MY ANSWER= The court concluded that Daigle signed the note under duress, making the note unenforceable, and on the law firm's appeal, a state intermediate appellate court upheld this judgment. The appellate court explained, "For a party to demonstrate duress, it must prove [1] a wrongful act or threat [2] that left the victim no reasonable alternative, and [3] to which the victim in fact acceded, and that [4] the resulting transaction was unfair to the victim," The wrongful conduct "must induce a fearful state of mind in the other party, which makes it impossible for the party to exercise his own free will." The law firm argued that it honestly believed it was entitled to $26,873, but the court was "convinced that the purpose of having [Daigle] sign the note . . . was to guarantee payment to the firm and to prevent the [divorce] court from examining whether or not the fee was reasonable." The wrongful act was that "McGowan threatened to withdraw after the first day of trial if [Daigle] did not sign the note." Daigle "was presented with the note and the threat that accompanied it after the first day of a two day trial. [His] request to show the note to Rutchik before signing it was rebuffed by McGowan." Daigle "was left with no reasonable alternative but to sign the note." Finally, Daigle's act of signing the note was unfair because it was presented to him after the first day of his trial, "when he especially depended on the plaintiff's services, and he was forced to sign it before an independent attorney could examine it for him."

Is that correct?

Daniel, a recent college graduate, is on his way home for the Christmas holidays from his new job. He gets caught in a snowstorm and is taken in by an elderly couple, who provide him with food and shelter. After the snowplows have cleared the roads, Daniel proceeds home. Daniel’s father, Fred, is most appreciative of the elderly couple’s action and promises and in a letter promises to pay them $500. The elderly couple, in desperate need of money, calls Fred and thanks him for the kind offer and says they would gladly accept Fred’s offer. Then, because of a dispute between Daniel and his father, Fred refuses to pay the elderly couple the $500. Discuss whether the couple can hold Fred in contract for the services rendered to Daniel

Jeremy took his mother on a special holiday to Mountain Air Resort. Jeremy was a frequent patron of the resort and well known by its manager. The resort required each of its patrons to make a large deposit to ensure payment of the room rental. Jeremy asked the manager to waive the requirement for his mother and told the manager that if his mother for any reason failed to pay the resort for her stay there, he would cover the bill. The manager agreed to waive the deposit requirement for Jeremys mother. After she returned home, Jeremys mother refused to pay the resort. The resort manager tried to collect the sum from Jeremy, but Jeremy also refused to pay, stating that his promise was not enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Is Jeremy correct? Explain

Jeremy took his mother on a special holiday to Mountain Air Resort. Jeremy was a frequent patron of the resort and well known by its manager. The resort required each of its patrons to make a large deposit to ensure payment of the room rental. Jeremy asked the manager to waive the requirement for his mother and told the manager that if his mother for any reason failed to pay the resort for her stay there, he would cover the bill. The manager agreed to waive the deposit requirement for Jeremys mother. After she returned home, Jeremys mother refused to pay the resort. The resort manager tried to collect the sum from Jeremy, but Jeremy also refused to pay, stating that his promise was not enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Is Jeremy correct? Explain

ry Forsee was an executive officer with responsibility for the U.S. operations of BellSouth Corp., a company providing global telecommunications services. Under a covenant not to compete, Forsee agreed that for a period of eighteen months after termination from employment, he would not “provide services * * * in competition with [BellSouth] * * * to any person or entity which provides products or services identical or similar to products and services provided by [BellSouth] * * * within the territory.” Territory was defined to include the geographic area in which Forsee provided services to BellSouth. The services included “management, strategic planning, business planning, administration, or other participation in or providing advice with respect to the communications services business.” Forsee announced his intent to resign and accept a position as chief executive officer of Sprint Corp., a competitor of BellSouth. BellSouth filed a suit in a Georgia state court against Forsee, claiming in part that his acceptance of employment with Sprint would violate the covenant not to compete. Is the covenant legal? Should it be enforced? Why or why not?

ry Forsee was an executive officer with responsibility for the U.S. operations of BellSouth Corp., a company providing global telecommunications services. Under a covenant not to compete, Forsee agreed that for a period of eighteen months after termination from employment, he would not “provide services * * * in competition with [BellSouth] * * * to any person or entity which provides products or services identical or similar to products and services provided by [BellSouth] * * * within the territory.” Territory was defined to include the geographic area in which Forsee provided services to BellSouth. The services included “management, strategic planning, business planning, administration, or other participation in or providing advice with respect to the communications services business.” Forsee announced his intent to resign and accept a position as chief executive officer of Sprint Corp., a competitor of BellSouth. BellSouth filed a suit in a Georgia state court against Forsee, claiming in part that his acceptance of employment with Sprint would violate the covenant not to compete. Is the covenant legal? Should it be enforced? Why or why not?

Costello hired Sagan to drive his racing car in a race. Sagans friend Gideon promised to pay

Sagan $3000 if she won the race. Sagan won the race, but Gideon refused to pay the $3000.

Gideon contended that no legally binding contract had been formed because he had received no

consideration from Sagan in exchange for his promise to pay the $3000. Sagan sued Gideon for

breach of contract, arguing that winning the race was the consideration given in exchange for

Gideons promise to pay the $3000. What rule of law that we have discussed supports Gideons

argument?

i belive that he should have to pay since he promised, verbal contract.."Elements of promissory estoppel" she was relying on a promise... is that correct or no?

This type of jury challenge will be used where a prospective juror is hopelessly biased?

A. Batson

B. Peremptory

c. Challgenge for cause

D. none of the above

In this type of jury challenge an attorney can move to have the other attorney show cause as to why they apparently seem to be engaging in discriminatory use of their challenges?

A.Batson

b. peremptory

c. challenge for cause

d.none of the above

This type of jury challenge will be used where a prospective juror is hopelessly biased?

A. Batson

B. Peremptory

c. Challgenge for cause

D. none of the above

In this type of jury challenge an attorney can move to have the other attorney show cause as to why they apparently seem to be engaging in discriminatory use of their challenges?

A.Batson

b. peremptory

c. challenge for cause

d.none of the above