Legal Principles in Fact Patterns

Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course Number
Due Date
Fact Pattern
Fact Pattern 1
Paul, a New Jersey resident, owned an appliance store. In the local paper, he advertised a free outdoor barbeque set to the first person to walk into the store on October 16, which is on Tuesday at 9:00 am and purchase a plasma T.V. set, 19-inch in size. According to the specified time in the advertisement, they told him that the barbeque set was out of stock when Jim walked in. This case was brought to the state court because the advertisement was published in a local newspaper, making it reasonable for many New Jersey state residents to react. Advertisements are not offers but are "invitations to negotiate” (Clarkson et al., 233). However, advertisements can become offers when they contain "definite terms that invited acceptance."
In Paul’s case, the advertisement became an offer because it was definite in its terms. It explicitly highlights that "the first person who entered the store at 9:00 am on Tuesday, October 16, and who purchased a 19" plasma T.V. set, would receive a free outdoor barbeque set" as an offer attached to the purchase. Under "Definiteness of Terms," this ad identified the parties (seller being the appliance store and buyer being the first person to walk in that Tuesday morning), identified the object with its quantity ("a" free outdoor barbeque set"), the pay ("purchased a 19" plasmas television set") and time of payment ("9:00 am on Tuesday, October 16"). Paul's concrete terms turned the ad into an irrevocable offer. The advertisement relays all the relevant information and aspects that make it valid and irrevocable. Therefore, the plaintiff, Paul, is liable for providing Jim with his promised goods. Therefore, a state court is responsible for determining the case, and Paul is likely to lose the case against Jim for failing to honor the offer terms that he had stated in the advertisement.
Paul also entered into a contract agreement with Sony to purchase their 19-inch plasma televisions. After signing the agreement, the first shipment of televisions arrived, and Paul rejected the shipment claiming there was no contract because the signed agreement was "too vague" regarding the quantity. This case was brought to the New Jersey state court. If in the agreement between Paul and the Sony Company they had stated the terms and conditions and the quality of the products to be brought, then there is a breach of specific performance. Specific performance entails the remedy that courts use to guarantee compensation to the offended party as agreed in the contract since money cannot adequately resolve the issue (Clarkson et al., 299). This principle requires the defendants to perform their specific contractual duties since the subject, in this case, is unique. Specific performance arises where the court cannot precisely define the actual value or amount of damage. The remedy thus relates to the contract where money compensation cannot put the offended party in a better position had the breach of the contract terms not occurred. In this case, Paul can sue the Sony Company for not bringing the specific products they had agreed on. Sony Company will thus make compensation to Paul. On the other hand, Paul has no responsibility or obligation for the products that Sony Company had delivered to him earlier.
There is an act of negligence on the truck driver's side in this case. This is because the truck driver rear-ended the SUV with no remorse. The truck driver was speeding, which is against the law. The truck driver is negligent by not following the traffic laws when they know exactly what to do when approaching the traffic lights. Given that the truck driver was operating a company vehicle, it is likely that the fireworks' insurance will cover the damages to the SUV. The total compensation will be $85000 for the vehicle damage and $15000 for each of the two employees, Paul and Silvio. Moreover, Fireworks Company must compensate Paul and Silvio for their grief and suffering. Apart from that, Paul and Silvio are entitled to be compensated by their employer under the Working Compensation Act. In terms of jurisdiction, it is crucial to note that the accident occurred between two states. Therefore, the case will be presented to a state court under the civil cases in either of the two states. The federal court will not hear this case. The parties can appeal the ruling of the state court to the Supreme Court in case they are not contented. Furthermore, if the claim is not settled within the period set by the state, the other available legal issue is Shit Out of Luck.
Another issue arising from the case is the act of due influence through the use of threat in making a contract during the meeting between Anthony and the Queen Company’s vice president. The Queen Company can sue Anthony before a state court. Pointing the gun at the vice president to compel them to enter into the contract indicates an act of due influence that can make the contract invalid and void. Even though the vice president was not satisfied with the contract terms. Instead of Anthony bargaining lawfully, he decided to threaten the vice president. Under the law, a contract is valid where no force or threat is applied to any party (Clarkson et al., 29). For a contract to be considered legally binding, the parties involved should be willing to enter it without duress.
The legal issue of cheating surfaces when the vice president deliberately lied to the president that he was signing for a local vendor for truck parts. Nevertheless, the president’s contract was to sign that the Queen Company was to use Anthony's trucks in waste removal, and they would pay him a monthly fee. This is an act of misrepresentation of the contract terms to the president. Additionally, the president goes ahead to sign the contract without reading the contract terms, which brings out the negligence on the president’s side. So the vice president conducts an act of misrepresentation while the president shows negligence for signing the contract blindly. The president ought to have read the whole contract before assenting to it. Consequently, Anthony has a right to ensure that the Queen Company honors its obligations as stipulated in the contract. If the Queens Company fails to honor the contract terms, they stand to be sued by Anthony in a state court since it falls under the cases that are heard in the state courts.
In the case of Silvio's sale of the home, there is evidence of cheating and fraud. It should be comprehended that every state has its dwelling laws, and individuals ought to stick to them. This applies to the seller and purchaser who are involved in this case. The issue of misrepresentation and fraud will be heard before a State court. Silvio misrepresents pertinent information to the purchasers through his broker, Silvio's nephew. This misrepresentation of information made the purchasers enter into the contract blindly. Therefore, it can be argued that the purchasers have the ground to sue Silvio and his nephew, the broker, for the misrepresentation of information (Clarkson et al., 285). The purchasers ought to seek compensation from Silvio because of the presentation of false information that made them purchase a home that was not worth the one they needed.
The purchasers signed a contract based on specific aspects (zoning that permitted a two-family size dwelling unit and an extension for erecting an in-ground pool). Since they lied about those aspects, they stand a chance of being compensated for fraud. Nonetheless, the purchasers may fail in prosecuting their case since Silvio, and his broker will defend themselves by ...