Stuart Waterstone Forum Index Stuart Waterstone

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FINAL EXAM

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Stuart Waterstone Forum Index -> Notes
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Waterstone
Site Admin


Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 171

PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2017 8:13 pm    Post subject: FINAL EXAM Reply with quote

To: Law 2 Students; From: Mr. Waterstone Re: Final examination

Your answers are due next Tuesday, May 30, 2017 by e-mailing them to me at this, and only this, e-mail address:

s.waterstone@yahoo.com

I will acknowledge each of you, when you e-mail me your responses. If you do not received my e-mail, make sure that you re-send your test answers.

To reiterate what I said this evening: Next Thursday is a mandatory attendance day, if you are not in class, for the full session (i.e. from 7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.) you will not qualify to receive a grade in this class!!!

Also (as discussed this evening), once again we have a possibility of having a guest professor, this will be confirmed on my website as late as next Wednesday evening. Please read Chapter 33 in preparation for this one time opportunity.

Your Exam:

The test, worth 100 points, has four questions. There is also a bonus question. REMEMBER: MERE CONCLUSIONS, EARN YOU ZERO POINTS.


1. Tom Testator, a resident of Encino, Ca., wants to write a will that will leave everything he owns to his special friend, Ben Beneficiary. Tom's only living relative is his estranged cousin, Nasty. Tommy and Nasty have had a feud lasting over 25 years. Tommy goes to an attorney to draft a formal will. The will is drafted, on January 1, 2011. (This is Will Number One)

Tom takes a rough copy of Will #1 home to study it. Tom decides that he will write a holographic will, so that if he suddenly dies his horrid cousin will not inherit his money. Tom knows that by California law Nasty would inherit all of his property if he died intestate, so Tom copies Will Number One entirely in his own handwriting, on blank paper, dates and signs it on January 2, 2011. (This is Will Number Two)

On January 3, 2011, Tom takes Will Number Two to his local stationery store and has it notarized. He gives a copy of each Will, Number One and Number Two, to Ben. The following week, while on his way to his attorney to Sign Will Number One, Tommy is struck by a car and killed instantly. A fight over his estate erupts between Ben and Nasty. Who wins, and more importantly, why. (25 points)

2. Jack and his sister Jill were climbing up First street's big hill in downtown L.A.. While driving a delivery truck for the LATribune, Inc., Badwolf ran into and injured both Jack and Jill. Evidence at trial established that Badwolf was driving while under the influence of alcohol. Evidence further shows that during the hiring process LATribune did very little screening of Badwolf's job application before hiring him. If they had, they would have discovered he was an alcoholic. Jack and Jill sue both Badwolf and LATribune. Who is liable, and what is the result of the lawsuit? (25 points)

3. Davey and Jones were in the locker business. They did not form a partnership, although they did combine their skills: Davey was responsible for all the bookkeeping and Jones was responsible for soliciting new sources for office equipment. Jones, accompanied by Davey, went to Fishie to try to get Fishie to become a new source of office equipment. Fishie agreed to sell, on credit, any necessary equipment. Jones stated: Send the bills to "Locker Company." The only reason Fishie agreed to the credit extension was that it was well known in the Sea business that Jones was quite wealthy. While at Fishie's business location, Baiter, a local businessman, stated several times that he envied Jones having Davey as his partner in Locker Company, as he, Baiter, would like such a partner. Everyone there heard these statements. Neither Davey nor Jones contradicted Baiter's statements. Bills accrued and Fishie would always call Jones and payments would be sent to Fishie. Suddenly bills were no longer being paid. Fishie sued Davey AND Jones for payment. Davey answered his part of the lawsuit claiming he was not a partner of Jones. What legal theory, if any, would make Davey liable on this debt? If you feel Davey is not liable, tell why. (25 points)


4. Black Sheep was employed by Master, the hiring partner, of Lane Corporation. Dame, among others, was a stockholder in this public corporation. Black, while unloading a large crate of wool from the truck he was driving for Lane, slipped and the crate fell and crushed Little Boy. The accident caused Little Boy to lose the use of his legs. Little Boy sues Dame, and Lane Corporation. What result? (25 points)


BONUS QUESTION DO NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION UNLESS YOU HAVE SUPPLIED AN ANSWER TO THE FOUR QUESTIONS ABOVE. It is worth 24 points.


6. Tom and Jerry are members of a manager managed Limited Liability Company, T&J LLC. T&J purchases one of the ToysRWe stores in Los Angeles. ToysRWe is a nationwide franchisor. T&J and ToysRWe sign a standard franchise agreement.

a. The franchise agreement states that toys will only be purchased from ToysRWe. T&J realize that they can purchase toys much cheaper from a rival company. They purchase the toys from this rival company and put a ToysRWe label on each toy they sell. ToysRWe discovers this and files a lawsuit to stop this practice and also to seek damages. What is the result of this lawsuit?

b. Upon inspection of the premises the franchisor discovers that T&J has violated the franchise agreement by not keeping a clean establishment, one of the requirements of the franchise agreement. The franchisor directly sues Tom and Jerry for damages to their reputation. What is the result of this lawsuit?

c. T&J wants to expand their store. They get full permission from ToysRWe. They hire Tweety Bird to do the work. Tweety's contract with T&J states that Tweety is acting solely as an independent contractor that no Social Security or income taxes were withheld for him by T&J, that he filed his income taxes as a self-employed individual, that he set his own working hours, had complete discretion in hiring and firing his own staff members, bore all expenses incurred in building the addition. Tweety also provided his own transportation and office equipment. As the job was finishing, Tweety was injured while trying to install the final sign. He sues T&J under California's workers' compensation laws. To qualify under this law Tweety must be an employee or an agent of T&J. Discuss fully whether or not Tweety can sue under this law.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Stuart Waterstone Forum Index -> Notes All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group