Rights and Remedies of Owner and FloorCo: A Breach of Contract Case, Lecture notes of Law

Download Rights and Remedies of Owner and FloorCo: A Breach of Contract Case and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! California First-Year Law Students’ Examination Essay Questions and Selected Answers October 2017 The State Bar of California Committee of Bar Examiners / Office of Admissions 180 Howard Street • San Francisco, CA 94105-1639 • (415) 538-2300 845 South Figueroa Street • Los Angeles, CA 90017-2515 • (213) 765-1500 ESSAY QUESTIONS AND SELECTED ANSWERS OCTOBER 2017 CALIFORNIA FIRST-YEAR LAW STUDENTS’ EXAMINATION This publication contains the four essay questions from the October 2017 California First-Year Law Students’ Examination and two selected answers for each question. The answers were assigned high grades and were written by applicants who passed the examination. The answers were produced as submitted by the applicant, except that minor corrections in spelling and punctuation were made for ease in reading. They are reproduced here with the consent of the authors. Question Number Subject 1. Torts 2. Criminal Law 3. Contracts 4. Torts QUESTION 1: SELECTED ANSWER A 1) Paula v. Spacetrip: Negligence: Negligence is the failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same conditions. In order for the plaintiff to prove a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed her a duty, that the defendant breached that duty, that the breach of that duty was both the actual and proximate cause of her injury/damages. (1) Duty: Duty is a legal duty requiring the defendant to conform his conduct to a certain standard of care in order to protect the plaintiff from unreasonable risks of harm. A defendant owes a duty to all foreseeable plaintiffs and the extent of that duty is determined by the applicable standard of care. Under the majority Cardozo view, a plaintiff is foreseeable if he/she is in the zone of danger. Under the minority view, Andrews, everyone is a foreseeable plaintiff. A defendant owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to foreseeable plaintiffs. Here, Paula (P) is a foreseeable plaintiff that is within the zone of danger because she is a customer of Spacetrip (S) who is using the service provided by S, going to the moon. Seeing that P is a customer, P is an invitee of S. P is an invitee because she is on S's premises, the spaceship, for a business purpose, to go to the moon, in which P is paying S for. As an invitee, S owes P a duty to inspect for unknown concealed dangers and to warn of them or to make the dangerous condition safe. Furthermore, S has a duty to exercise reasonable care for activities conducted on the property. Here, S owes P a duty of reasonable care in order to prevent unreasonable risks of harm because P is an invitee. (2) Breach of Duty: A breach of duty occurs where the defendant fails to act or conform his conduct to the applicable standard of care. A breach of duty can be proven under the Learned Hand Formula and by the Res Ipsa Loquitur test. Learned Hand Formula: Under the Learned Hand Formula, a breach of a duty owed by the defendant can be established if the burden of taking a precaution is less than the probability of the harm occurring the gravity of the likely harm. Here, under the Learned Hand Formula, P can establish that S breached its duty because there is an adequate precaution that S could have taken in order to prevent an injury from occurring. There is a new system that has become available that uses rockets to navigate the escape capsules on the spaceship back to the ground in a much more safe way. Here the burden of taking the precaution is that the extra precaution is more expensive than the system that S is already using, the parachute system. However, the burden of taking the extra precaution is less than the probability of the harm occurring. The probability of the harm occurring may not be relatively high, but the probability of the harm occurring is likely high enough because a newer and safer safety system was developed for this exact purpose. The magnitude of the harm occurring is serious because the failure of a product to function properly and the failure to exercise reasonable care in a safety precaution can result in severe damage to the body and even death. Here the resulting harm that could occur from not taking the precaution and using the new system is outweighed by the magnitude of the harm that can occur, especially since investigators stated the use of new rocket escape system might have led to a better outcome. Conclusion: P can establish that S breached its duty to exercise reasonable care by failing to use the safer alternative escape capsule. Res Ipsa Loquitur: Under the Res Ipsa Loquitur test, a breach of a duty can be established if there is no direct evidence demonstrating what happened, the event causing the plaintiff's injury is one that would normally not occur in the absence of negligence by someone, and the instrument was under the exclusive control of the defendant at the time the accident occurred. Here, there is direct evidence showing that the capsule malfunctioned due to the storm. The facts state that the capsule deployed and the storm was the cause of P's harm. Conclusion: Under the Res Ipsa approach P will likely fail to establish a breach. (3) Causation: Causation is the link that links the defendant's conduct to the plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant was both the actual cause and the proximate cause. Actual Cause: The defendant is the actual cause of plaintiff's injury if, but for the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care, the plaintiff would not have suffered injury. Here P will argue that, but for S not using the new rocket escape capsule system, P would not have suffered an injury. This can further be demonstrated by the fact that investigators stated that the use of new rocket escape system might have led to a better outcome. Conclusion: S is the actual cause of P's injury. Defendant is a Merchant: A merchant is one that ordinarily sells or distributes the goods of the kind. Here, S is a merchant of the Escapade, the escape capsule, because S normally deals with the good, and he sells trips to individuals who desire to go to the moon. This fact makes S a merchant because he normally deals in the goods of the type and S is one that normally uses the product. Defective Product: P must prove that the product was defective. A product can be defective because of a manufacture defect, a design defect, or because the defendant failed to give adequate warning of a non obvious risk. Manufacture Defect: A manufacture defect occurs where the product deviates from the norm of products produced by the manufacturer in a way that makes the product more dangerous even though all care was exercised in manufacturing and marketing the product. Here, the Escapade is a single product that was struck by a storm. According to the facts, the product deployed properly. However, the product can have a manufacture defect because the product was not able to withstand the storm and the product failed to return P safely to earth. Therefore, the product failed to function properly. Design Defect: Occurs where all products bear the same feature whose design is defective and abnormally dangerous. There are two tests used, the consumer expectation test and the benefit risk test. Consumer Expectation Test: Under the consumer expectation test, P can demonstrate that the product failed to perform as an ordinary consumer would expect it to. Here, the rocket failed to return P back to earth safely. Therefore, the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect it to because an ordinary consumer would expect to be returned back to earth safely. Risk Benefit Test: P must prove that the defendant could have made a safer product without impacting the price and utility of the product. Here, P can show that S could have used a safer product, i.e. the new escape capsule. This product is safer and would be a safer alternative to the one that S currently uses. Causation: Here, S is the actual cause because, but for S not using the alternative, P would not have suffered harm. S is also the proximate cause because it is foreseeable that a product whose design is faulty, would cause injury to another. Intended Use or Reasonably Foreseeable Misuse: A defendant is liable if the product was used as intended. Here the Escapade was used as intended. The Escapade was used to return passengers to earth in the event that an accident occurred. Here, the Escapade was used when a storm struck the spaceship and the Escapade failed to function properly Main Conclusion: P will likely succeed on claim against S for strict products liability. Warranties: Express Warranty: An express warranty occurs where the seller of a product, a merchant, states that the product will function in proper way, or function how the model will function. Here, there is a breach of express warranty because the escape capsule failed to function properly and failed to perform "sufficient to provide adequate safeguards" upon returning the earth from the moon. 2) Defense: Contributory Negligence: If P is found at all negligent, then she will be barred from recovery. Here, P was not negligent, therefore, she will not be barred from recovery under contributory negligence. Comparative Negligence: If P is found to be at all negligent, then P's recovery will be reduced by the percentage that the court applied for her negligence. Here, P was not negligent in causing her injuries. Therefore, she will receive recovery under both the modified and pure negligence theories. Assumption of the Risk: Occurs where the plaintiff voluntarily, and unreasonably proceeds in the face of a known risk created by the defendant's negligence. Here, S would argue that P impliedly assumed the risk because she voluntarily proceeded in the face of a known danger created by the risk of the activity that S offers. Learned Hand Risk Utility Analysis Under this test, if B<PL then the defendant has breached their duty to the plaintiff. B is equal to the burden of prevention, P is equal to the Probability of harm and L is equal to the magnitude of harm. Here, the Burden of Prevention is the cost of the new vehicle escape system that has become widely available to navigate the escape capsule back to the ground more safely. This system is much more expensive than the parachute system and has not been tested. Paula will argue that Spacetrip should have used the new system as it was much safer. Spacetrip will counter argue that the new system was not only not tested, it was very expensive. The Burden of Prevention here is therefore very high. The Probability of Harm is unclear; however it would seem reasonable that any trip to outer space would encounter dangers as we have seen in the past. Spacetrip is also a new venture and therefore would not have the experience that a longer term business would have. It would seem that the probability of harm would be high. The Magnitude of Harm here would be very high. An accident in space would be magnified by the challenges of rescue and the inherent dangers of traveling in space. Even with what they call a tried and true rescue system, the new venture may not know how to react to risky situations. Therefore, any accident would seem highly likely to result in great harm or death. Spacetrip also had no other back up system in case they had a mistake. All of their eggs were in one basket so to speak. That makes the magnitude of serious harm more likely. Therefore, the magnitude of harm is very high. Balancing all of these factors it would seem that Spacetrip breached their duty to Paula by not investing in the new system that would have navigated the escape capsule back to the ground more safely and by not having a back up system. Consumer Expectation Test The consumer expectation test tells us if there has been a breach of duty when a reasonable consumer's expectations are not met. Here, Paula has purchased a trip to the moon aboard the Escapade. She has a reasonable expectation of safe travel even in a new venture to both get there safely and return safely. A reasonable person would have similar expectations. Spacetrip fails the consumer expectation test as they did not meet the expectations. Spacetrip will argue here that the system they have installed is "tried and true" and that the vehicle escape system they used is widely used and listed in the Rocket Industry Standards Manual as being sufficient to provide adequate safeguards. They will claim that the new system has not been tested in real life situations. They will say because of this they have not breached any duty. However, because of the elevated duty they have to Paula to keep her safe on her travels they should have invested in the safest system available at the time. Going into space is inherently dangerous and carries enormous risks, and they should have been prepared to face those risks with the latest and safest technology. Due to Learned Hand and the consumer expectation test, Spacetrip has breached their duty to Paula. Actual Cause Actual Cause can be tested by the "but for" test, where but for their action, the harm would not have occurred. Here, But for Spacetrip's crash to the ground Paula would not have been harmed. Spacetrip is the actual cause of Paula's harm. Proximate Cause Proximate Cause is the natural and foreseeable result of one's actions with no superseding intervening causes to break the chain of causation. Here, Spaceship will argue that there were intervening, superseding causes that break the chain of causation. They will argue that the weather was beautiful when the ship took off and there was a totally unpredictable violent storm that blew the Escapade off course. However, it is foreseeable that when one is traveling that weather conditions can be unpredictable so that will not break the chain of causation. Spacetrip is the proximate cause of Paula's injury. Damages General and Special damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering. Here, if Paula is considered not to have assumed the risks of space travel, she will be able to collect for the expenses she has occurred as a result of the crash. Defenses Contributory Negligence In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, where the plaintiff negligently contributes to his own harm, the plaintiff's recovery is barred. Here, there is no indication it is a contributory negligence jurisdiction or that Paula has negligently contributed to her own harm. This will not be a defense. There is a design defect. Actual Cause - Rule and Analysis – Supra Proximate Cause - Rule and Analysis - Supra Defenses State of the art Here, Spacetrip will claim that they have the most recent "safest" product as the new one has not been tested. They will also argue that they use what is listed in the Rocket Industry Standards and this is what is required. However the new product is known to be safer, so this will not be a defense. Damages - Rule and Analysis - Supra QUESTION 2 One night, Andy went to a local bar in town. He had a large number of drinks and became intoxicated. When the bartender refused to serve him any more drinks, Andy flew into a rage and went to his car to get his handgun. With the gun in his hand, Andy intended to return to the bar. Instead, he got confused and stumbled into the convenience store next door, pointed the gun at Charles, the cashier, and said: “Give me a drink or I’ll shoot.” When Charles hesitated, Andy pointed the gun at the ceiling and fired. At the sound of the gunshot, several store customers rushed outside. One of the fleeing customers bumped into Walter, who was standing on the sidewalk outside the store. The impact caused Walter to fall into the street. Before he was able to recover, Walter was struck and killed by an oncoming car. When Andy fired the gun, the bullet struck a metal pipe, bounced off the pipe, and hit another store customer, Vickie, in the arm. She was rushed to the hospital to receive emergency medical treatment. Unfortunately, Vickie contracted an infection while at the hospital and later died. Andy claims he was so drunk he did not know what he was doing. He insists he never wanted to hurt anybody. 1. With what crimes, if any, can Andy reasonably be charged? Discuss. 2. What defenses, if any, can Andy reasonably raise? Discuss. QUESTION 2: SELECTED ANSWER A A. Crimes of Andy 1. Assault with a Deadly Weapon • Assault. A assault occurs when the defendant attempts to commit a battery or causes the victim to suffer reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery. A battery occurs when the plaintiff unlawfully applies force on the victim's person. Andy clearly caused Charles to suffer reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery because Andy pointed a gun at Charles and told Charles to give him a drink or be shot. It appears that Charles suffered apprehension because he hesitated when the gun was pointed at him, and being shot would have been an immediate, unlawful application of force. Hence, Andy assaulted Charles. • Deadly Weapon. A deadly weapon is a weapon that a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death. A reasonable person would consider a gun as likely to cause death. Hence, Andy committed assault with a deadly weapon. 2. Attempted Robbery • Attempt. Attempt occurs when the defendant enters the zone of perpetration of a crime with the specific intent to commit the crime. Here, Andy entered the convenience store with a gun and threatened to shoot the cashier if the cashier did not give him a drink. It appears that Andy entered the zone of perpetration of a robbery, with the specific intent to commit a robbery. • Robbery. Robbery is a larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or threat of force. Here, Andy attempted to obtain a drink from the cashier in a convenience store by threatening to shoot him with a gun. Taking the drink would have been a trespassory taking of personal property of the convenience store. As the is premeditated and deliberate, and some felony murders. Each jurisdiction defines its own first degree felony murders. All other murders are second degree. It is clear from the facts that Walter's death was not a result of premeditated and deliberate conduct by Andy. If robbery is a first degree felony murder in this jurisdiction, then Andy may be properly charged with first degree murder. If Andy is not guilty of attempted robbery or robbery is not a first degree felony murder, then Andy may be properly charged with second degree murder. • Involuntary Manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is an unlawful unintended homicide committed without malice that results from criminal negligence or the commission of a crime (misdemeanor manslaughter rule). If Andy's conduct does not rise to the level of constituting a wanton and willful disregard of human life (depraved heart), then it would at the very least be considered criminal negligence. A homicide that results from the defendant's criminal negligence may result in charges of involuntary manslaughter. Hence, Andy may properly be charged with involuntary manslaughter. 4. Battery of Vickie • Battery. Battery is defined above. Andy caused his bullet to strike a pipe, and then bounce off the pipe and hit Vickie in the arm. Reasonable people would agree that being struck with a bullet in the arm constitutes harmful conduct. As Andy's conduct was unlawful and resulted in Vickie suffering harmful contact, Andy may be properly charged with the battery of Vickie. 5. Homicide of Vickie • Murder. Defined above. The analysis of Vickie and Walter's homicides are similar except for the causation and superseding cause elements. • Homicide/Causation. Defined above. In the case of Vickie, Andy's conduct was a but for cause because he fired the bullet that struck her in the arm and led to her ultimate death. • Superseding Cause. Defined above. Vickie was rushed to the hospital where she received emergency medical treatment, and she later contracted an infection and died. It is possible that she contracted the infection from the hospital, in which case the infection from the hospital could be a superseding cause. The question is whether it was foreseeable. As a reasonable person would expect a gunshot victim to seek medical treatment in a hospital, Vickie's treatment in the hospital was foreseeable. When seeking medical treatment, it is foreseeable that the treatment may be negligent. Negligent medical treatment does not break the chain of causation unless it amounts to reckless conduct. Here, the facts do not indicate that the hospital acted recklessly in its treatment of Vickie. Hence, her medical care would probably not be a superseding cause. • Malice. Defined above. The analysis here is similar to that of Walter above. It is likely that Andy's conduct constituted willful and wanton conduct which evidenced a reckless disregard of human life (depraved heart). If Andy's conduct did not rise to the level of depraved heart, then it would at the least be considered criminally negligent (see below). • Felony Murder. Defined above. Vickie's felony murder analysis is the same as Walter's (see above). • Degree. Defined above. Vickie's degree analysis is the same as Walter's (see above). • Involuntary Manslaughter. Defined above. Vickie's involuntary manslaughter analysis is the same as Walter's (see above). B. Andy's Defenses 1. Intoxication. Intoxication may be a defense when the defendant has decreased mental and physical capabilities as a result of ingesting drugs or alcohol. Andy was intoxicated. An intoxication defense may defeat specific intent crimes, but it is not a defense to general intent crimes. A defendant acts with specific intent when he acts with desire, purpose, or knowledge to a substantial certainty that his act will cause a specific result. Attempted robbery and first degree (premeditated and deliberate) murder are specific intent crimes. If Andy successfully asserts an intoxication defense, then he may be able to avoid conviction on those charges. 2. Heat of Passion. Heat of passion is a defense to murder when four elements are present: (a) adequate provocation; (b) the defendant was actually provoked; (c) a reasonable person would not have cooled off between the time of provocation and the killing; and (d) the defendant did not in fact cool off. Here, Andy flew into a rage because a bartender denied service. A reasonable person would not consider that as adequate provocation to kill anyone. Hence, a heat of passion defense would fail. that a stray bullet could kill or seriously injure another. Therefore, absent a defense, the malice is present as defined supra in clause (iii). Additionally, as explained above, Andy committed an aggravated assault and attempted armed robbery. These are inherently dangerous felonies, are violent and involve a deadly weapon. Thus, there is malice present here as defined supra in clause (iv), under the felony murder rule. Actual Cause For a charge of murder, the defendant's conduct must be the actual cause of the death. Here, but for the shooting by Andy, the bullet shot from his gun would not have scared the store customers so as to cause them to run outside, in turn causing Walter to fall in the street, be struck and killed by an oncoming car. Additionally, but for his bullet being shot, it would not have ricocheted into Vickie, causing her to be injured, get an infection at the hospital, and die. Thus, there is actual cause here against Andy for two deaths, Walter's and Vickie's. Proximate Cause For a charge of murder, the defendant's conduct must also be the proximate cause of the death. Proximate cause exists when the death was reasonably foreseeable from the conduct of the defendant. Here, Andy pointed and shot his gun which set into motion the fleeing crowd, bumping into Walter, his falling in the street, and his being hit and killed by an oncoming car. Andy will argue that these multiple disjointed events intervened and superseded his mere shot into the ceiling of the convenience store, and thus there is insufficient proximate cause for Walter's death. This argument will fail. It is certainly foreseeable that the shooting of a gun in a convenience store will cause a mass exit of customers and, if near a street, that one or more of them will enter oncoming traffic and be struck thereby. Thus, there is proximate cause here for the death of Walter. In Vickie's case, the bullet struck her by a ricochet into her arm, she contracted an infection, and later died. Andy will likely argue that the ricochet into Vickie was unforeseeable because there was no way a reasonable person would expect a bullet off of a metal pipe in the ceiling to kill a store customer. That argument will fail because, here, when one shoots in a retail establishment, a stray bullet can strike and kill someone. Its trajectory is virtually irrelevant. Thus, there is ample proximate cause here for the death of Vickie. First Degree Murder Murder in the first degree generally requires premeditation or deliberation, or a predicate felony murder. Here, Andy engaged in several concerted steps: he left the bar, went to his car, got his handgun, entered the store (albeit mistaken as to which establishment he was entering), pointed the gun, threatened Charles, and shot. Thus, there was planning and time for deliberation. Thus, Andy may be charged with first degree murder, Here, too, Andy engaged in an inherently dangerous felony: aggravated assault and attempted armed robbery, as explained above. Thus, he may reasonably be charged with first degree felony murder. Second Degree Murder Murder in the second degree requires malice, but may be charged in the absence of a predicate felony murder, premeditation or deliberation. Here, if the court finds that there was insufficient premeditation or deliberation on Andy's part (such as, for example, if his intoxication absolves him of the mens rea of premeditation and deliberation), or if there is a defense to one of the predicate felonies set forth supra, the jury may find Andy to have committed murder in the second degree, Voluntary Manslaughter Voluntary manslaughter is a murder that is mitigated to the lesser offense by a defendant's conduct having been motivated by the heat of passion, under adequate provocation, which results from circumstances that would arouse a sudden, uncontrollable and intense passion in an ordinary person, without opportunity to cool down, and under circumstances in which the defendant did not actually cool down. Here, no such adequate provocation exists. A reasonable person would not pull a gun and shoot when merely declined a drink. Therefore, the charge of voluntary manslaughter will not apply. Involuntary Manslaughter Involuntary manslaughter is an unintentional killing that results from a defendant's criminally reckless or criminally negligent conduct. Criminal recklessness constitutes a gross deviation from ordinary conduct in consciously disregarding a known unacceptable risk to human life. Criminal negligence constitutes conduct without awareness of an unacceptable risk to human life, when the defendant should have been aware of it under the circumstances, in gross deviation of ordinary conduct. Here, in the event there is a defense that absolves Andy of the mens rea of malice, or which defeats or mitigates the charges of aggravated battery or attempted aggravated robbery explained above, then the prosecution may reasonably charge Andy here with involuntary manslaughter. QUESTION 3: SELECTED ANSWER A OWNER v. FLOORCO – TILES Choice of Law The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), governs the sale of goods. Goods are tangible items of property, moveable at the time of identification to the contract. Here, Owner entered into a contract to purchase beige colored Acme floor tiles. Floor tiles are tangible items of property and are moveable at the time of identification to the contract as they are to be delivered to Owner. The UCC will govern this contract and be supplemented by common law. Status of Parties The UCC defines a merchant as someone who regularly deals in goods of the kind sold, or holds themselves out as having special knowledge about the goods sold. Here, FloorCo sells floor tiles. It is suggested by their name, as well as the fact that they sold a large quantity of floor tiles to Owner, that they regularly deal in floor tiles and would therefore be considered a merchant. Owner is a new restaurant owner. There are no facts to suggest that she regularly deals in floor tiles or that she has any particular expertise in that area. Owner would not be considered a merchant. Contract Formation and Defenses A contract validly formed requires offer, acceptance, and consideration with no valid defenses. The facts here tell us that a valid written contract was formed with respect to Owner’s purchase of floor tiles from FloorCo. Therefore, no analysis is required as to offer, acceptance, consideration or defenses to formation. It will further be presumed that the Statute of Frauds was satisfied with respect to this contract. Breach and Damages Breach of contract is any deviation from promised performance. Owner contracted with FloorCo to purchase beige colored Acme brand vinyl floor tiles for her new restaurant. FloorCo instead delivered beige colored Bravo brand vinyl floor tiles instead. This is a deviation from the promised performance and would be considered breach. The court will look to the materiality of the breach. The facts indicate the “tiles were visually identical to the Acme brand beige tiles.” Further, the tiles delivered were a higher quality than what Owner ordered. For Owner to get these higher quality tiles, Owner would have had to pay more money as they are more expensive, but Owner is being provided with these tiles at the lower price than the Acme brand tiles. There are no facts to indicate any particular reason that Owner wanted the Acme brand that would suggest this breach could be material in that respect. In considering any damages that could result from this breach, Owner is not suffering anything by FloorCo providing a different brand. FloorCo delivered the tiles and sent an email to Owner later that day mentioning the substituted tiles. Since the tiles were visually identical, it’s likely that Owner would never have noticed the difference, further evidencing Owner has not been damaged. Based on the foregoing, FloorCo has breached its contract with Owner but that breach is not material. Owner has not been damaged. Rejection Upon receipt of non-conforming goods, buyer may reject the non-conforming goods. Where buyer rejects non-conforming goods that seller reasonably believed would be acceptable, seller will be allowed reasonable time to cure beyond the contracted date of performance. Owner has received goods that do not conform to what was purchased. Owner has the right to reject all or part of the non-conforming goods. If Owner chooses to reject the non-conforming goods, she must do so within a reasonable time, and notify FloorCo that she is rejecting the goods. As noted above, if FloorCo is able to establish that they had reason to believe that Owner would accept the non-conforming goods, FloorCo will be allowed to cure the breach within a reasonable time, even though the date of promised delivery has passed, and Owner must accept. The facts show that FloorCo wrote to Owner saying they assumed she was delighted that they had substituted the much better Bravo tiles in her order. This will support FloorCo’s argument that they reasonably believed the better tiles would be acceptable, particularly since any difference in the tiles did not affect them visually. Owner can reject, but likely, FloorCo will be allowed time to cure. Good Faith and Fair Dealing Implied into all contracts is the requirement of good faith and fair dealing. Owner could argue that FloorCo substituting tiles other than what she ordered amounted to acting in bad faith. FloorCo will counter that there was no bad faith because the tiles they provided were better quality and there is no visible difference. FloorCo can further show that the tiles provided were more expensive and that, in providing these higher quality tiles, FloorCo has incurred added expense for Owner’s benefit which is hardly an act of bad faith. Owner cannot successfully raise this argument. At this point, Owner can sue immediately for the breach but must take steps to mitigate her damages (cover). Owner will be required to seek out another floor cleaning company to provide the same services FloorCo was going to provide. Owner would be entitled to seek any incidental damages, as well as expectation damages if the new company is costlier than her contract with FloorCo. Owner may choose not to sue immediately and decide to wait for the time of FloorCo’s promised performance. FloorCo will then be able to retract their repudiation at any time until the time for promised performance, or until Owner relies on FloorCo’s repudiation. Statute of Frauds The law requires that certain contracts be evidenced by a writing and signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought. Contracts which, by their terms, cannot be completed within one year fall within the Statute of Frauds. The time is calculated by the date the contract is formed. Here, FloorCo and Owner entered into a contract for FloorCo to clean Owner’s tile floors once per week for one year. By its terms, the contract period is exactly one year, however, the contract was formed several weeks before the tile floors were installed and before performance was due to begin. As such, this contract could not be performed within one year from the date it was formed and is subject to the writing requirements of the statute of frauds. This is a defense that would be raised by Owner if she wanted to get out of the contract. However, FloorCo is already trying to get out of the contract so this defense will not be helpful to Owner, but rather will be helpful to FloorCo. Expectation Damages Expectation damages are a monetary remedy intended to place the non-breaching party in the position they would have been in had the contract been fully performed. Assuming a contract was validly formed (see Statute of Frauds discussed above), Owner can seek expectation damages. Owner is required to mitigate her damages (cover) by a good faith effort to find another company to clean the floors. FloorCo has already informed Owner that they will be returning her $5,000 payment to them for the floor cleaning. Owner will have to show that contracting with a different company to provide the same services is more costly. Even if Owner is able to find another company to provide the same services at the same price, Owner may still seek damages for any incidental expenses incurred by FloorCo’s breach. Specific Performance Specific Performance is an equitable remedy which can be sought when the legal remedy is inadequate. Here, Owner could attempt to have the courts order FloorCo to perform their end of the contract by cleaning her floors weekly for one year as agreed. However, service contracts are not eligible for specific performance as the constitution prohibits involuntary servitude. Further, courts will not take on the burden of monitoring and enforcing such a contract when the legal remedy (money damages) is adequate. An award of monetary damages will make Owner whole and allow her to hire another company to provide the same services FloorCo was going to provide. Specific Performance is not a remedy available to Owner. Impossibility Here, the manufacturer of the new Vinyl-Clean machine advised FloorCo that it had permanently ceased all production of the machine and had cancelled FloorCo’s order due to a design defect. FloorCo may argue that they are entitled to avoid performance of the cleaning contract due to impossibility because the new Vinyl-Clean machine they ordered to do the job is not available. This argument is unlikely to prevail because, as Owner will point out, the subject matter of the contract was for service to have the restaurant floors to be cleaned once weekly for a year. The new Vinyl-Clean machine was not the subject matter of the contract and that particular machine is not required for FloorCo to perform on the contract. FloorCo can purchase a different type of machine to do the job. Owner will prevail if FloorCo attempts to raise this argument. Impracticability Impracticability can be a defense where, through an event that neither party anticipated, performance is made extremely burdensome or significantly more costly. FloorCo may argue that, although they can purchase a different machine than the one intended and performed on the contract, to do so would be impracticable because a different machine would be more costly. However, a more costly machine will not relieve FloorCo of their contractual obligations because the difference in price on the machine’s is unlikely to be such a significant and outrageous difference as to give rise to impracticability. Owner will prevail if FloorCo attempts to raise this argument. Here, because we are dealing with a contract for tiles in excess of $500, it falls within the SOF and will be required to be in writing. We are told that the cleaning service will take one year and not one year and a day. Because it falls on 1 year, it will not be required to be in writing. However, since we are told that there is a valid written contract, this will suffice to fulfill the SOF requirement. Thus, we have a writing that will satisfy the SOF. What were the terms of the contract? TERMS Under contract law, express terms are to be strictly construed and implied terms are more flexible. Here, the express terms are beige colored Acme brand vinyl floor tiles at a price of $10,000 for delivery in 3 weeks with installation of the tiles a week after delivery for $5,000. Since we are told we have a valid written contract, we have a fully integrated contract and any evidence of prior written or oral contemporaneous oral agreements that contradict these terms will be barred by the Parol Evidence Rule. Thus, we have express terms to which both parties are expected to strictly comply. Do we have a breach? BREACH Under contract law, any deviation from promised performance, however slight, is a breach. A material breach is one that substantially undermines the benefit of the bargain and a minor breach is only a slight deviation from the promised exchange. Here, we are told that the tiles delivered to the owner were not Acme brand, but rather Bravo brand and it was a more expensive and higher quality tile than the Acme brand. Under the perfect tender rule of the UCC, there must be perfect tender of the product indicated in the contract. There could be an exception wherein the product delivered was similar in all aspects as what was ordered. However, we have a completely different tile delivered here. Therefore, we have a breach and a material one at that. Thus, we have a material breach here. Do we have an effective modification? MODIFICATION Under contract law, a modification is where parties to a contract agree to a change in the terms of the contract. Under the UCC, good faith is all that is required. Under the common law, additional consideration is required. An oral modification can occur if both parties agree. Here, we can infer from the facts of the case that there was a UCC modification since we are told that FloorCo sent an email to owner informing him of the change in brand of tiles. Since it was a much better brand, the owner would presumably be happy. Most of all, owner was not charged for the difference in price of the higher quality tiles. Further, the facts are silent as to the owner disagreeing with the change. Since the modification was apparently done in good faith, the modification stays. Thus, there was an effective modification here. Is FloorCo's breach excused? EXCUSES Under contract law, a material breach excuses the aggrieved party from performance where a minor breach does not. Here, because the breach resulted in a modification, FloorCo will be excused. Unless of course, owner complains, but the facts are silent with regards to that. Normally, owner would be excused from further performance due to FloorCo's material breach. But since it appears that owner accepted the modification, owner will not be excused from performing. What remedies are available to the Owner? REMEDIES EXPECTATION DAMAGES Under contract law, and as laid out in Hawkins v. McGee, expectation damages will put the aggrieved party in the same position he/she would have been had the contract been performed. Damages must be reasonably certain, foreseeable and unavoidable. Here, the owner would be entitled to the difference in price between the Acme brand tiles and the Bravo brand tiles because Acme brand tiles were what was identified to the contract and it was what the owner agreed to. However, as discussed supra, we have a valid modification. Thus, although Owner would be entitled to expectation damages, it will not be needed here. FloorCo's duty will consequently be discharged. Therefore, FloorCo's refund due to the cancellation of the cleaning contract will adequately discharge FloorCo's duties. QUESTION 4 On a sunny winter day, Dan went for a hike in the mountains. While walking on a trail far from civilization, a sudden storm arose. Thick snow accompanied by horrific winds created blizzard conditions. Dan was an experienced outdoorsman and knew that, without shelter, he was likely to succumb to hypothermia and die. Fortunately, Dan remembered that his friend Jill owned a cabin in the vicinity. Jill had told him that he could use the cabin should the need arise. In the blizzard conditions, Dan struggled to find Jill’s cabin, but soon saw a red-roofed log cabin that looked exactly like Jill’s. As promised, the key was under the mat, and Dan entered to wait out the storm. In order to stay warm, Dan removed some built-in wooden bookshelves from the wall and used them to build a fire in the fireplace. He also threw in some books that were on the shelves to keep the fire going. He slept in front of the fire, and the storm was over the following morning. Before leaving the cabin, Dan wrote Jill a note thanking her for the use of the cabin and apologizing for the missing shelves. He forgot to mention the books. He left his phone number and told her to give him a call. As it turns out, the cabin where Dan stayed was owned by Polly and not Jill. When Polly went to the cabin to open it for the summer, she noticed that her bookshelves and books were missing and found a note on the table from some fellow named Dan. Polly was outraged that a stranger would use her cabin without her permission, destroy the bookshelves, and take her books. She decided to sue Dan. 1. What tort cause(s) of action can Polly reasonably raise against Dan? Discuss. 2. What defense(s), if any, can Dan reasonably assert? Discuss. 3. What types of damages, if any, might Polly recover from Dan? Discuss. QUESTION 4: SELECTED ANSWER A POLLY v. DAN TRESPASS TO LAND The intentional and volitional entry onto the real property of another person with possessory rights that causes damages. It interferes with the exclusive possession of the land. Here, Dan enters onto the land of Polly. The land does not belong to Dan, nor does Dan have any ownership interest in the land. Polly will argue that Dan was not authorized to enter the land. Polly will also say that just because she was not present and using her land/cabin at the time of Dan's arrival, that Dan had the right to enter the land or the cabin. Thus, Dan has committed Trespass to Land. DEFENSES PRIVATE NECESSITY When there is an emergency situation, a person may enter the land of another to avoid extreme physical harm or injury, but they are still liable for damages. Here, Dan is hiking in the wilderness. Dan sees that there is a bad storm coming. There are thick snow and blizzard conditions. Dan realizes that he would likely die if he does not find shelter. Dan will likely be seen as "authorized" to enter the land of Polly because his life was in danger. However, Polly can sue for damages and recover for any harm caused. This defense will be successful. However, Polly can recover damages discussed infra. CONSENT When there is adequate and authorized permission, there is consent. Here, Dan believes that he is entering his friend’s cabin, and not the cabin of Polly. Dan has the express consent to enter the land and cabin of his friend. However, Dan GENERAL DAMAGES Polly can recover for the emotional harm she suffered when she thought that her cabin was broken into. If there was pain and suffering involved, she can recover monetary damages for that pain and suffering. SPECIAL DAMAGES Polly can recover the reasonable cost of any other economic harm that she suffered. Since Dan used her stationery to write a letter, she can recover for that. She can also likely recover for having the cabin sufficiently cleaned. Further, she can recover the reasonable value of the cost to re-install the shelves into the cabin. PUNITIVE DAMAGES NOT AVAILABLE Where there are intentional torts, punitive damages may be available to punish the defendant. Here, Dan was not acting with malice - he was simply trying to stay alive and survive a brutal snow storm. He was not acting with intent to harm - only to stay alive and survive. Polly may argue that he did not inform her of the books that he burned, and that his omission of that fact was malicious. This argument will fail. There is clearly no malice. Thus, punitive damages will not be available. QUESTION 4: SELECTED ANSWER B Polly v. Dan 1. Polly's Claims against Dan Trespass to Land Trespass to land is the intentional invasion of the land of another without consent or privilege. Here, the facts state that Dan took the key under the mat at the cabin and "entered to wait out the storm," and he remained in the cabin until leaving the following morning. Thus, Dan's entering Polly's cabin was an intentional invasion, and because the cabin actually belonged to Polly, Dan's entering was into the cabin was thus on the land of another, Polly's. Dan will argue that he did have consent from Jill to enter her cabin, which appeared virtually identical to Polly's, and thus his entering Polly's cabin was based on a reasonable mistake. However, mistake as to land ownership is not a recognized defense, as it is the intentional invasion of the land itself which constitutes the tort of trespass. Here, Dan intended to invade Polly's land, and so Polly will have a claim against Dan for trespass to land, absent a privilege that Dan might have to enter the land (infra). Trespass to Chattel Trespass to Chattel is the intentional interference with the personal property of another without consent or privilege. The facts state that inside Polly's cabin Dan had "removed some built-in wooden bookshelves from the wall and used them to build a fire in the fireplace" in order to stay warm during the blizzard. Dan also "threw in some books" that were on the shelves to keep the fire going. Because Dan removed the wooden bookshelves and threw in the books for the purpose of making a fire to stay warm, his acts were volitional and so he intended to interfere with these items. Since the books and the bookshelves belonged to Polly, Dan interfered with the personal property of another. Dan will argue that he had implied consent to interfere with these items from Jill, who told Dan he "could use the cabin should the need arise." However, mistake as to the ownership of the property is not a recognized defense, even if in good faith. Here, Dan intended to interfere with personal property which belonged to Polly, so Polly will have a claim against Dan for trespass to land, absent a privilege that Dan might raise to interfering with the property. Conversion Conversion is intentional interference with the personal property of another which is so substantial as to warrant requiring the converter to pay for the full value of the property converted. Dan intentionally interfered with the personal property of another, Polly, supra. Polly will argue that the use of her property amounted to conversion. Since Dan had "removed some built-in" wooden bookshelves from "the wall" of the cabin and threw them into the fireplace, Dan clearly converted the bookshelves as they are now destroyed forever, depriving Polly of their substantial use and value. Moreover, while the facts do not state this, depending upon Dan's removal of the bookshelves from the