Winter 2015
Marta operated a successful fishing shop. She needed a new bait cooler, which had to be in place by May 1 for the first day of fishing season.
On February 1, Marta entered into a valid written contract with Don to purchase a Bait Mate cooler for $5,500 to be delivered no later than April 15.
On February 15, Don called Marta and told her that he was having trouble procuring a Bait Mate cooler. Marta reminded Don that meeting the April 15 deadline was imperative. “I’ll see what’s possible,” Don responded in a somewhat doubtful tone.
Concerned that Don might be unable to perform under the contract, Marta immediately sent him the following fax: “I am worried that you will not deliver a Bait Mate cooler by April 15. Please provide your supplier’s guarantee that the unit will be available by our contract deadline. I want to have plenty of time to set it up.” Believing that Marta’s worries were overblown and not wanting to reveal his supplier’s identity, Don did not respond to her fax.
When Don attempted to deliver a Bait Mate cooler on April 16, Marta refused delivery. Marta had purchased a Bait Mate cooler from another seller on April 14, paying $7,500, which included a $2,000 premium for one-day delivery by April 15.
Have Marta and/or Don breached the contract? If so, what damages might be recovered, if any, by each of them? Discuss.
Amy and Bob owned Blackacre in fee simple as joint tenants with a right of survivorship. Blackacre is located in a jurisdiction with a race-notice recording statute.
Without Bob’s knowledge, Amy gifted her interest in Blackacre to Cathy by deed. Amy and Bob then sold all of their interest in Blackacre by a quitclaim deed to David, who recorded the deed. Shortly thereafter, Cathy recorded her deed.
David entered into a valid 15-year lease of Blackacre with Ellen. The lease included a promise by Ellen, on behalf of herself, her assigns, and successors in interest, to (1) obtain hazard insurance that would cover any damage to the property and (2) use any payments for damage to the property only to repair such damage. Ellen recorded the lease.
Five years later, Ellen transferred all of her remaining interest in Blackacre to Fred. Neither Ellen nor Fred ever obtained hazard insurance covering Blackacre.
While Fred was in possession of Blackacre, a building on the property was destroyed by fire due to a lightning strike.
David has sued Ellen and Fred for damages for breach of the covenant regarding hazard insurance for Blackacre.
1. What right, title, or interest in Blackacre, if any, is held by Cathy, David, Ellen and/or Fred? Discuss.
2. Is David likely to prevail in his suit against Ellen and Fred? Discuss.
In March, while driving her car, Diana struck and injured Phil.
In April, Phil filed a complaint against Diana in federal district court properly alleging diversity jurisdiction and seeking damages for negligence for physical injury.
In May, Diana filed an answer denying negligence.
In June, during discovery, Diana filed a motion asking the court to order (1) a physical examination and (2) a mental examination of Phil. Over Phil’s objection, the court ordered him to submit to both examinations.
In July, Diana served Phil with a notice to depose Laura, a physician who treated him after the accident. Phil objected on the grounds that (1) Laura could not be deposed because she was not a party, and that (2) deposing her would violate the physician-patient privilege. The court overruled Phil’s objections.
In September, a few weeks before trial, Phil decided to file a demand for a jury trial. Diana immediately filed a motion to strike the demand. The court granted Diana’s motion.
1. Did the court err in granting Diana’s motion to order (a) the physical examination and (b) the mental examination of Phil? Discuss.
2. Did the court err in permitting Diana to depose Laura? Discuss.
3. Did the court err in granting Diana’s motion to strike Phil’s demand for a jury trial? Discuss.
[Remedies]
Steve owned two adjoining improved tracts of land, Parcels 1 and 2, near a lake. Parcel 1 bordered the lake; Parcel 2 bordered Parcel 1, and was adjacent to an access road.
Steve decided to sell Parcel 1 to Belle. Belle admired five 100-year-old oak trees on Parcel 1 as well as its lakefront location.
On February 1, Steve and Belle executed a contract for the sale of Parcel 1 at a price of $400,000. The contract specified that the conveyance included the five 100-year-old oak trees. In addition, the contract stated that Belle was to have an easement across Parcel 2 so that she could come and go on the access road. Although the access road was named Lake Drive, Steve and Belle mistakenly believed that it was named Top Road, which happened to be the name of another road nearby. The contract referred to the access easement as extending across Parcel 2 to Top Road, which would not have been of any use to Belle. The contract specified a conveyance date of April 1.
Later in February, Steve was approached by Tim, who offered Steve $550,000 for Parcel 1. Steve decided to breach his contract with Belle and agreed to convey Parcel 1 to Tim. Despite Belle’s insistence that Steve honor his contract, he told her that he was going ahead with the conveyance to Tim in mid-April, and added, “Besides, our contract is no good because the wrong road was named.”
In March, Belle learned that, in April, Steve was going to cut down the five 100-year-old oak trees on Parcel 1 to better the view of the lake from Parcel 2.
1. What equitable remedies can Belle reasonably seek to obtain Parcel 1? Discuss.
2. What legal remedies can Belle reasonably seek if she cannot obtain Parcel 1? Discuss.
[Agency] [Partnership]
Andy, Ruth, and Molly decided to launch a business called The Batting Average (TBA), which would publish a monthly newsletter with stories about major league baseball players. Andy, a freelance journalist, was responsible for writing the stories. Andy conducted all of his business activities via a close corporation called Baseball Stories, Inc., of which he was the only employee. Ruth was responsible for maintaining TBA’s computerized subscriber lists, mailing the newsletter every month, and billing TBA subscribers. Molly provided all equipment necessary for TBA. Andy, Ruth, and Molly expressly agreed to the following: Molly would have exclusive authority to buy all equipment necessary for TBA; and TBA’s net profits, if any, would be equally divided among Andy, Ruth, and Molly.
Andy subsequently wrote a story in the newsletter stating that Sam, a major league baseball player, had been taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Andy knew that the story was not true, but wrote it because he disliked Sam. As a result of the story, Sam’s major league contract was terminated. While writing the story, Andy’s computer failed. He bought a new one for TBA for $300 from The Computer Store. The Computer Store sent a bill to Molly, but she refused to pay it.
Sam has sued Andy, Ruth, Molly, TBA, and Baseball Stories, Inc. for libel.
The Computer Store has sued Andy, Ruth, Molly, and TBA for breach of contract.
1. How is Sam’s suit likely to fare? Discuss.
2. How is The Computer Store’s suit likely to fare? Discuss.
In 2011, Tess, age 85, executed a valid will, leaving all her property in trust for her grandchildren, Greg and Susie. Income from the trust was to be distributed to the grandchild or grandchildren then living each year. At the death of the last grandchild, any remaining assets were to go to Zoo for the care of its elephants.
In 2012, the court appointed Greg as conservator for Tess, because of Tess’s failing mental abilities.
In 2013, the court authorized Greg to make a new will for Tess. Greg made a new will for Tess leaving Tess’s entire estate to Susie and himself outright. Greg, without consulting Tess, then signed the will, in the presence of two disinterested witnesses, who also signed the will.
In 2014, Tess found a copy of the will drafted by Greg, and became furious. She immediately called her lawyer, described her assets in detail, and instructed him to draft a new will leaving her estate in trust to Susie alone and excluding Greg. Income from the trust was to be distributed to Susie each year. At Susie’s death, any remaining assets were to go to Zoo for the care of its elephants. The new will was properly executed and witnessed.
In 2015, Tess died. That same year, Zoo’s only remaining elephant died.
Zoo has petitioned the court to modify the trust to provide for the care of its animals generally.
1. Is Zoo’s petition likely to be granted? Discuss.
2. What rights, if any, do Greg, Susie, and Zoo have in Tess’s estate?
Discuss. Answer according to California law.
Summer 2015
Doctor implanted a valve in Patient’s heart in State A, where both Doctor and Patient lived. The valve was designed in State B by Valvco. Valvco was incorporated in State C, but had its headquarters in State D.
Patient was visiting State B when he collapsed due to his heart problems. Patient decided to remain in State B for the indefinite future for medical treatment.
Patient sued Doctor and Valvco in state court in State B for $100,000, alleging that Valvco defectively designed the valve and Doctor negligently implanted it. Another patient had recently sued Valvco alleging that it defectively designed the valve, and had obtained a final judgment in her favor after trial on that issue.
Doctor and Valvco each moved the state court to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. The state court granted Doctor’s motion and denied Valvco’s.
Valvco then filed a notice in federal court in State B to remove the case. Patient immediately filed a motion in federal court to remand the case to state court. The federal court denied Patient’s motion.
Relying solely on the judgment in the other patient’s action, Patient then filed a motion in federal court for summary adjudication of the issue that Valvco defectively designed the valve. The federal court granted the motion.
1. Did the state court properly grant Doctor’s motion to dismiss? Discuss.
2. Did the state court properly deny Valvco’s motion to dismiss? Discuss.
3. Did the federal court properly deny Patient’s motion for remand? Discuss.
4. Did the federal court properly grant Patient’s motion for summary adjudication? Discuss.
Oscar owned a fee simple absolute interest in Greenacre. He conveyed a fee simple defeasible interest in Greenacre to Martha and Lenny “as joint tenants with a right of survivorship for so long as neither Martha nor Lenny make any transfer of Greenacre. In the event of such a transfer, Greenacre shall automatically revert back to Oscar.”
Subsequently, without Lenny’s knowledge, Martha conveyed all of her interest in Greenacre to Paul. She died shortly afterwards. Unaware of Paul’s existence, Lenny paid the property taxes.
Paul entered into a written lease of his interest in Greenacre with Sally for a two-year term at a rental of $500 per month. At the end of the lease, Sally stopped paying rent, but continued to occupy Greenacre without Paul’s consent. After three months, Paul confronted Sally. Although they did not agree to a new lease, Sally paid Paul the three months’ rent she had not paid and resumed paying him monthly rent.
Lenny then attempted to sell his interest in Greenacre. He soon learned that Sally was occupying Greenacre and that Paul had acquired Martha’s interest.
Concerned about conflicting property interest claims regarding Greenacre, Lenny commenced a lawsuit seeking to quiet title against Oscar, Martha’s estate, Paul, and Sally, and to obtain from Paul an accounting and contribution for a share of the rent paid by Sally and for a share of the property taxes paid by Lenny.
1. What property interest in Greenacre, if any, is the court likely to find possessed by Oscar, Lenny, Paul, Sally, and Martha’s estate? Discuss.
2. Is Lenny likely to obtain an accounting and contribution from Paul? Discuss.
[Criminal Law] [Criminal Procedure]
Owen, a police officer, had a hunch that Dora might be selling methamphetamine from her house in the country. To learn more, Owen drove to Dora’s house with a drug-detection dog and waited until she left.
Owen first walked the drug-detection dog around Dora’s house. At his direction, the dog jumped up on the porch, sniffed the front door, and indicated the presence of methamphetamine.
Owen then propped a ladder on the back of the house, climbed to the top, and peered into a second-story bedroom window. He saw a small box on a bedside table, but could not read the label. He used binoculars to read the label, and saw that it listed ingredients that could be used to make methamphetamine.
Owen went back to his car, saw Dora return home, and then walked back to the house and crouched under an open window. He soon overheard Dora telling a telephone caller, “I can sell you several ounces of methamphetamine.”
Dora was arrested and charged with attempting to sell methamphetamine.
Dora has moved to suppress evidence of (1) the drug-detection dog’s reaction, (2) the small box, and (3) the overheard conversation, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
How should the court rule on each point? Discuss.
In 2008, Henry and Wendy married in California. Neither had saved any money before marriage. At the time of the marriage, Henry had a monthly child support obligation of $1,000, which was deducted from his salary, for a child from a prior relationship.
In 2010, Wendy accepted a job at Company. At that time, she was told that if she performed well, she would receive stock options in the near future.
In 2011, Henry inherited $100,000. He used $25,000 to buy a necklace that he gave to Wendy as a holiday present. He used the remaining $75,000 to buy a municipal bond that paid him $300 per month.
In 2012, Wendy was granted stock options by Company, which would become exercisable in 2014, in part because she had been a very effective employee. Later in 2012, Wendy was injured in a car accident and made a claim against the person responsible.
In 2013, Henry and Wendy permanently separated and Henry moved away.
In 2014, Wendy settled her accident claim for $30,000. Later in 2014, Wendy exercised her stock options and earned a profit of $80,000.
In 2015, Wendy filed for dissolution.
1. What are Wendy’s and Henry’s respective rights regarding:
a. The necklace? Discuss.
b. The car accident settlement proceeds? Discuss.
c. The stock option profits? Discuss.
2. Should Henry be required to reimburse the community for his child support payments and, if so, in what amount? Discuss.
Answer according to California law.
[Business Associations] [Professional Responsibility]
Online, Inc. was duly incorporated as an Internet service provider. Its articles of incorporation authorized issuance of 1,000 shares of stock at $1,000 par value.
Online initially issued only 550 shares to its shareholders as follows: Dick and Sam each received 200 shares and Jane received 150 shares. Online’s Board of Directors (composed of Jane, Sam, and Harry) named Jane as the Chief Executive Officer and named Harry as General Counsel.
Online’s business grew substantially in the following months. Still, Online was short on cash; as a result, instead of paying Jane $10,000 of her salary in cash, it issued her 50 additional shares with the approval of its Board of Directors.
Looking to expand its operations, Online sought to enter a strategic partnership with LargeCo, Inc. Jane had learned about LargeCo through Harry’s wife, who she knew was the majority shareholder of LargeCo. Jane directed Harry to negotiate the terms of the transaction with LargeCo. In the course of Harry’s negotiations with LargeCo, LargeCo offered to acquire the assets of Online in exchange for a cash buy-out of $1,000,000. Harry telephoned Jane and Sam; Jane and Sam agreed with Harry that the offer was a good idea; and Harry accepted LargeCo’s offer.
Two days after completion of the transaction, LargeCo announced a joint venture with TechCo, which was solely owned by Harry. The joint venture was valued at $10,000,000. In its press release, TechCo described the joint venture as a “remarkable synergy of LargeCo’s new technology with TechCo’s large consumer base.”
The following week, Dick learned of LargeCo’s acquisition of Online’s assets. An expert in technology matters, he was furious about the price and terms of the acquisition, believing that the value of Online had been seriously underestimated.
1. What are Dick’s rights and remedies, if any, against Jane, Sam and/or Harry? Discuss.
2. What ethical violations, if any, has Harry committed? Discuss.
Answer according to California and ABA authorities.
[Constitutional Law] [Real Property]
City Council (City) amended its zoning ordinance to rezone a single block from “commercial” to “residential.” City acted after some parents complained about traffic hazards to children walking along the block. The amended ordinance prohibits new commercial uses and requires that existing commercial uses cease within three months.
Several property owners on the block brought an action to challenge the amended ordinance.
In the action, the court ruled:
1. Property Owner A, who owned a large and popular restaurant, had no right to continue that use, and had time to move in an orderly fashion during the three-month grace period.
2. Property Owner B, who had spent $1 million on engineering and marketing studies on his undeveloped lot in good faith prior to the amendment, was not entitled to any relief.
3. Property Owner C, whose lot dropped in value by 65% as a result of the amended ordinance, did not suffer a regulatory taking.
Was each ruling correct? Discuss.