PAM v. TED
Governing Law
The governing law in this case is the common law, because the transaction involves a
lease of land.
Was there a Contract?
A valid contract consists of a valid offer, acceptance, bargained-for consideration for which
the law recognizes a duty and provides a remedy for breach.
Here, there appears to be an offer, because Ted sent an e-mail to Pam to confirm the
terms of there [sic] offer. Pam’s response, “That’s right,” appears to be an acceptance of
the terms of the e-mail and confirmation of the offer. Further, the confirmation contained
sufficient definite terms to clearly state the terms of the agreement.
Therefore, a valid contract exists.
Consideration
Valid consideration consists of a bargained-for exchange between the parties. It
consist[sic] of a legal detriment to the promisee (Pam), which is bargain for by the promisor
(Ted). Generally, the court will not inquiry [sic] where the consideration appears to be
minimal (nominal) or clearly one-sided. Further, consideration can consist of monetary
value of forbearance of doing something that one has the legal right to do.
Here, although the facts don’t state the size of the garage, the consideration of $5.00
appears to be minimal or nominal given the average size of a garage. Despite this, $5.00
per year is very minimal and questions as to the adequacy of consideration paid. However,
Ted could argue the fact that Chip Co (“Chip”) is a small company and part of the
bargained-for exchange was Pam’s interest in the success of Chip.
Therefore, adequate consideration can be found.
Defenses
The statute of frauds (“SOF”) requires that a contract for an interest in land, including
leases, be in w[r]iting. Further, any contract for which performance is impossible within one
year is required to be in witting[sic].
Here, Pam could argue that there was not a witting[sic] that was signed by Ted, the party
to be charged. Ted would argue that the e-mail was sent via the company e-mail and
constitute[s] a sufficient witting[sic] to document the agreement and had sufficient terms
to indicate the agreement. Because the e-mail contains an ability to verify that the e-mail
was sent and provides evidence of the terms of the agreement, the court is likely to find
3
that the e-mail was a sufficient witting[sic] to comply with the witting[sic] requirement of the
SOF.
Therefore, this defense would not work.
DAVE v. TED
Governing law
Here, the UCC is the governing law, as the transaction involves the sale of goods.
Merchants
A merchant is a person who deals in the type of goods involved in the transaction or holds
themselves out as having special knowledge in the goods. Here, Ted is clearly a
merchant, as he deals in the type of goods involved (chips).
Contract
See definition above.
Here, an offer was clearly made because the e-mail sent by Ted to Dave indicated Ted’s
willingness to enter into an agreement. Such offer was clearly accepted by Dave via
Dave’s e-mail back to Ted.
Therefore, a contract was formed.
Consideration
See definition above.
Here, Ted is bargaining for Dave’s agreement to not “bring any legal action”. The courts
will not normally inquire as to the adequacy of such agreement absent Ted’s knowledge
that the claim was false. If the claim was false and Ted or Dave knew the claims was [sic]
false, then such agreement to not bring any legal action would not be bargained for or
represent legal detriment. Although the facts don’t state that the claim was valid, if it is
found that the claim was valid, then adequate consideration was provided. However, see
preexisting duty below.
Therefore, the court will find adequate consideration if the claim is valid and was bargained
for in exchange for not bringing any legal action.
Preexisting Duty
A preexisting duty is a duty for which one is already legal[sic] required to do. Under the
common law, any modification requires consideration. If no consideration is found, the
court would likely find that such modification was not bargained for. However, the UCC
allows modification without consideration, as long as the modification was made in good
faith.
4
Here, Dave would argue that Ted was under a preexisting duty to replace the defective
chips, because this a[sic] warranty issue. However, the facts don’t indicate that Ted had
given a warranty for the chips. Further, if such warranty had been disclaimed, not[sic] duty
to fix the chips would exists[sic]. Absent these facts, there does not appear to be any
requirement for Ted to fix the chips.
Therefore, since the facts don’t indicate that a warranty existed, Ted and Dave’s
agreement would appear to be a valid bargain-for exchange.
BOB v. TED
Governing Law
UCC would govern (see above).
Merchant
See above. It appears that Bob is a merchant as well, because Bob is a customer and
presumably the chips would be utilized in a product, especially given that the average
consumer doesn’t usually purchase 100 computer chips for personal use.
Contract
See definition above.
Here, Ted telephoned to confirm what appears to already have been an agreement to send
100 chips. This is supported by the fact that Bob had fully paid.
Modification
As discussed above, merchants can modify an agreement absent consideration as long
as 1) the parties agree and 2) the modification was made in good faith.
Here, Ted’s communication to Bob appeared to be a refusal to ship unless Bob agreed to
the price increase. Although the facts state that Bob reluctantly agreed, the facts don’t
appear to indicate that the price increase was made in bad faith, because the facts show
that the market price had increased. Bob would argue that this was in bad faith, because
an increase in the market price was why Bob had entered into the agreement to protect
from price. Bob could have rejected the increase and sued for damages, but didn’t.
Therefore, absent any evidence of bad faith on the part of Ted, valid consideration was
obtained.
State of Frauds (“SOF”)
Sale of goods greater than $500 are required to be in witting[sic]. This includes
modifications.
Here, Ted telephone[sic] Bob and modified the agreement, which Bob accepted. The facts
5
don’t support that a writing was obtained. As such, Bob could argue that the agreement
was not valid because the modification was required to be in witting[sic] given that it
involved the sale of goods. However, the facts don’t state the price and is[sic] would have
to be shown that the 10% increase was greater than $500.
Therefore, if the modification was greater than $500, the[sic] Bob would be successful in
claiming the SOF.
SILICON INC. (“Silicon”) v. TED
Governing Law
UCC is the governing law.
Merchant
See above. Silicon appears to be a merchant as well, because they deal in the goods
involved.
Offer and Acceptance
See definition above.
Here, there is an offer made by Ted, which appears to have been accepted by Silicon.
Consideration
See definition above. If a promise doesn’t really bind someone to perform, but states that
such party can perform if they want, then such promise is considered to be illusory.
Here, because Silicon’s response Ted’s[sic] offer to purchase 10 tons of silicon stated that
they agreed to sell all the silicon to Chip Co that it might want appears to be illusory
because it really doesn’t bind Chip to purchase all of their requirements form[sic] Silicon.
Ted’s offer clearly manifests an intent to purchased[sic] 10 tons of silicon, at market price,
should Chip need any silicon. Because Ted could but[sic] the silicon should it need to, it
didn’t bind Chip to purchase such amount.
Therefore, no valid bargained-for consideration was given.
Promissory estoppel
Promissory estoppel will supply consideration up to the point to prevent an injustice if the
promisor (Ted) should have known or knew that Silicon would rely on Ted’s promise and
did actually justifiably rely on Ted’s promise.
Here, the facts don’t support that Silicon relied on Ted’s promise (i.e., hire additional
workers). All the facts state is Silicon’s response to sell the silicon.
Therefore, absent any evidence of detrimental reliance, promissory estoppel will not apply.
I. Crimes of Chuck
Solicitation? Solicitation occurs if one person asks another to commit a crime with the
intent that the crime be committed. Here, Chuck did not ask Bill to kill Alice, but merely set
it up so he would be likely to. Thus, although there was intent that the crime be committed,
Chuck did not ask. He just told a lie to Bill. Thus, no solicitation.
Accomplice? One is liable as the accomplice to the crime of another if he encourages or
assists in committing it with the intent to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.
Here, Chuck intended that Bill kill Alice because he wanted Alice’s job at the bank. He
assisted in the commission of the crime because it was his lie that enraged Bill to begin
with, and he obviously intended Bill to do just what he did. Thus, Chuck can be convicted
of all the crimes of Bill as an accomplice that were committed after he told the lie to Bill.
II. Crimes of Bill
1. Battery? Criminal battery is the unlawful application of force to the person of another
that results in physical harm or an offensive touching. Here, Bill unlawfully applied force
to Alice because he “physically beat” her during quarrels. Such beatings would certainly
consist of offensive touching, but probably physical harm as well. Thus, Bill can be
charged with battery.
2. Assault? Criminal assault comes in at least two varieties: an attempted battery or
intentionally placing another in apprehension of an imminent battery. Here, the facts show
only that Bill and Alice fought constantly and that Bill beat her during quarrels. Although
it could reasonable[sic] be implied that Alice experienced apprehension of an imminent
battery or that Bill occasionally missed in an attempted battery, assault would merge with
battery anyway. Thus, assault will merge with battery.
3. Murder of Emily? Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice.
Malice can be established in any one of four circumstances: intent to kill, intent to cause
serious bodily harm, willful and wanton conduct (depraved heart), and the felony murder
rule. Here, the[sic] Bill intended to kill Alice because he “took aim at Alice” while he was
standing outside pointing a shotgun at her.
Under the doctrine of transferred intent, the intent to kill one person can be transferred to
another person if the other person is the one who winds up getting killed. Here, Fred tried
to stop Bill from shooting into the window but was too late to keep Bill from firing the gun.
Unfortunately, he wound up shooting and killing Emily, his wife.
Furthermore, under the deadly weapon doctrine intent to kill can be inferred from the use
of a deadly weapon, such as the loaded shotgun in this case. Here, the intent to kill can
13
be inferred because Bill used a shotgun to kill Emily. However, that intent can be rebutted
as discussed below.
However, further analysis is necessary because murder can be mitigated to voluntary
manslaughter under adequate provocation (heat of passion). Such mitigation requires that
the defendant be sufficiently provoked to become enraged, that a reasonable person would
also have become enraged, the person did not cool off, and a reasonable person would
not have cooled off. Sufficient legal provocation includes finding your spouse engaged in
intimate relations with another person. Here, although there might initially be sufficient
provocation when Chuck told the made-up story about Alice and the bank president having
an affair (he yelled “This time I’m going to kill her!” and he was in a rage), when Bill got to
his house all he saw was Alice and Emily playing cards at the table. A reasonable person
may have not become so enraged as this just from hearing about it. However, if a
reasonable person would have been enraged and wouldn’t have cooled off, the murder of
Emily might be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter. Here, a reasonable person would not
have become so enraged.
If not, and the intoxication (discussed below) negates intent to kill, there are sufficient facts
to show willful and wanton conduct because shooting a shotgun at another person clearly
shows such disregard for the value of human life and a very high degree of risk of at the
least seriously bodily harm. Voluntary intoxication cannot negate a general intent crime
such as depraved heart murder.
Thus, Bill can be charged with the murder of Emily.
4. Attempted murder of Alice? Attempt is the specific intent to commit a crime and legally
sufficient substantial step in furtherance of that intent that goes beyond mere preparation.
Here, Bill appears to have the requisite intent to kill because he shouted that he was going
to kill Alice. The act required must be a substantial step, which is either close proximity to
committing the crime, an unequivocal act that suggests the criminal intent, or is strongly
corroborative of the criminal purpose. Here, Bill took the requisite substantial step because
under any test his act of pointing the gun at Alice and killing her was only stopped by Fred
tackling him. Thus, Bill would be charged with the attempted murder of Alice, unless there
is a defense.
Bill’s intoxication? Bill may argue that he did not have the requisite intent because he had
become “very drunk”. Intoxication can be defense to criminal conduct if it negates a
required mental state. If Bill was so drunk that he could not form the requisite intent, then
he cannot be charged with intent. Such intoxication must be so severe that it is no different
than insanity, which, under the majority rule would require that Bill be unable to distinguish
the nature or quality of his acts, or if he could, he did not know they were wrong. Here, that
defense will probably fail because of the history Bill had with Alice and how readily he got
mad.
Thus, Bill’s intoxication will be no defense to attempted murder.
14
III. Crimes of Dave
1. Accomplice liability? Accomplice defined above. Here, Dave may have the requisite
intent that the crime be committed (murder of Alice) because Bill told Dave that he was
going to use the shotgun to kill Alice and Dave sold the shotgun to him anyway. Under this
circumstance, Dave will have assisted in the killing of Alice sufficient for him also to be
convicted of murder.
IV. Crimes of Fred
Battery of Bill? Battery defined above. Although Fred’s tackling of Bill resulted in the death
of his wife Emily, Fred was attempting to prevent Bill from shooting. Defense of others is
a valid defense if one reasonably believes that another person is in imminent danger of an
unlawful attack and uses reasonable force to prevent it. Here, Fred had a reasonable
belief someone was under an unlawful attack because he saw Bill pointing the shotgun at
someone through the window. Tackling Bill would be reasonable force because he saw
that Bill was about to shoot. Thus, Fred will not be charged with the battery of Bill.
There are no facts to suggest that Fred has committed any other crimes.