Business Law Assignment 2

WRITING ASSIGNMENT 2

 

1.The plaintiffs—the Nicols, Hoerrs, Turners, and Andersons—purchased subdivision lots from Ken Nelson.  The lots bordered an undeveloped tract and offered scenic views of an adjacent lake.  When Nelson and his partners began taking steps to develop the previously undeveloped tract, the plaintiffs sued.  The trial court found that the plaintiffs had purchased their lots only after receiving oral assurances from Nelson that (1) the tract would remain undeveloped open space, (2) the property was owned by a company that had no plans to build on the land, (3) he held an option to purchase the property if it became available, and (4) he would not develop the land if it came under his ownership.  Concluding that the plaintiffs had reasonably relied on Nelson’s oral promise, the trial court enjoined Nelson’s development of the property based on promissory estoppel.  Nelson appealed, arguing that the Statute of Frauds, which requires that contracts involving interests in real property be in writing, barred enforcement of his oral promise.  Is the trail court correct or is Nelson correct?  Discuss fully.  

  

2.Thelma, a law professor who recently obtained her driver’s license, bought a used car from Honest Bob’s Motors.  The car had numerous defects that were plainly apparent, and Honest Bob made various false material statements of fact about the car in order to make the sale.  However, Thelma paid no attention to these and bought the car because she thought Honest Bob was cute.  After purchasing the car, Thelma discovered that it was junk and tried to rescind.  Does she have the right to rescind?  Why or why not? 

  

LEGAL ANALYSIS

In this course, you will learn a little about legal analysis. You will also be
learning legal rules and how to apply them to legal problems. The information in this
document is intended to help you with class discussion and preparing your writing
assignments.

I generally use the traditional rule for burglary to demonstrate the analysis. Please note
that burglary is a state crime. This means that each state has its own rule for burglary.
Before each state enacted its own burglary rule, we used the “traditional” burglary rule
we adopted from English law. That rule reads as follows:

Burglary is breaking and entering a dwelling, at night, with intent to commit a felony.

Most of the rules you will learn in this class consist of elements. When we are dealing
with a rule that consists of elements, every element must be established to “fit in the
box.” If we cannot establish one of the elements, then in the case of burglary, for
example, there is no burglary. There may be some other crime, but that is a separate
matter. We will cover some rules that consist of factors. A rule consisting of factors
requires the court to “weigh” the factors in order to determine whether the rule applies or
not. Generally one or two of the factors are given more weight than the others.

Burglary is a rule that consists of elements. The elements of the traditional burglary rule
are as follows:

Breaking and
Entering
a dwelling
at night
with intent to commit a felony

When dealing with a rule that consists of elements, it is important that you understand
that you must establish that each and every element is present. If one of the elements is
missing, that is, if you cannot find support to establish one of the elements, then you
don’t have a burglary. I call this not fitting “in the box.” In other words, if we cannot
establish each element of burglary, then the person is not “in the burglary box.” They
may be in some other box. It is not your problem in this course to figure out what box
they might be in. So, do not get caught up in the facts presented and try to make the facts
fit the rule. What you must do is look at the rule, look at the facts, come to a conclusion
as to whether there was a burglary and then state your position and support it by applying
the facts to the rule.

Here is an example:

November 2, 2013 12:11 PM

Sneaky Sam is walking down a street in a nice neighborhood late in the afternoon. As
much as possible, he is keeping close to the hedges and shadows in the hopes of not being
seen or noticed by others in the immediate area. At one point he turns onto a property
following the hedge and sticking close to it to get to the rear of the property. The house
has a door with a glass window on the top half of the door and solid on the bottom half.
He tries to open it. It is locked. He looks around and sees a rock. He picks up the rock
and breaks the window, reaches in and unlocks the door. He then walks into the house
and goes right to the dining room where there is a diamond-studded goblet. He picks up
the goblet and leaves the house.

Question: Can Sam be charged with burglary (or in Prof. Ellison speak, is Sam in the
burglary box)?

Example of a possible answer:

The rule for burglary requires that the person charged break into a home. Sam did this
when he reached down, picked up the rock and broke the glass on the door and OPENED
it. It also requires that he enter. The facts support the conclusion that he entered because
after breaking the glass he reached in through the opening, unlocked the door and walked
into the house. The rule requires that the defendant break and enter into a dwelling. He
entered a house. A house is a dwelling. The acts must take place at night. This element
cannot be established because the problem states that he did this in the afternoon. Even
though all other elements of burglary can be established including the last element, that
he did all of these things with the intent to commit a felony – steal the goblet – because
he did not do so at night, under the traditional burglary rule there was no burglary.

Now, you may not like this result. But what you are charged with doing here is to
provide a rule and apply the rule to the facts. You must then come to a conclusion. You
must support your conclusion with both the correct rule and application of the rule to the
facts presented in the problem. You may NOT, NOT, NOT change the rules or the facts.
In other words, don’t become result oriented and be more interested in making Sam pay
for what he did than you are in the analysis you are required to provide.

For those of you who may be mentally objecting to the traditional burglary rule and
wondering how this could be the rule, remember that it is the traditional rule and as far as
I know, no longer the rule anywhere in the U.S. We have instead the “modern” burglary
rule. Again, this is defined state by state, but generally, the modern rule, is something
like this: unauthorized entry into a structure with intent to commit a felony. The rule no
longer requires a breaking. In other words, if you enter some place that you are not
authorized to enter, that satisfies that requirement of the rule. It need not be a dwelling.
Most states use the term “structure.” In other words, unauthorized entry into a structure –
It does not have to be at night, it can be at any time. If the person breaks something to

November 2, 2013 12:11 PM

enter, that is just fine – all the better – but breaking in is not required any longer. Florida
also has the crime of burglary of a conveyance. What is that? I leave it to you to find
out!

I hope this helps you understand what legal analysis should look like. What I am looking
for is for you to be able to justify/support/backup, your conclusions with rules and
analysis.

Now, you must not forget to consider exceptions to rules, defenses or special rules. So,
when you begin tackling problems, make sure you have read everything in the text about
the rule so that you are aware of any exceptions and defenses that might apply.

The example I have set out above follows the analysis law students are required to follow.
We call it IRAC.*

I = the legal issue – burglary, contracts, specifically, agreement etc.
R = the rule of law that applies – e.g. burglary
A = application of the facts to the rule, or call it analysis, your analysis of the problem
C = conclusion – result. In other words, can he be charged with burglary? Is there a

K? (remember the letter K is used for the word “contract.” If you are going to law
school, you will learn that right away.)
* Some schools today, use FIRAC – where the letter “F” stands for the facts

So, first you must look for the rule, then for possible exceptions and defenses or special
rules. Once you have those, then decide what the outcome should be and demonstrate
why this should be the outcome by applying your facts to the rule.

Any answers I post are merely suggested answers. It is not necessary for you to follow a
particular format as long as you provide me with the information I am seeking. However,
I strongly recommend that you apply the rule in the order of the elements, in other words,
start with the first element and proceed down the line. Don’t start with the last element or
in the middle. This will not always be easy for you to do because sometimes you will see
the problem element right away and want to go directly to it instead of starting at the
beginning. Unfortunately, not applying the rule in the order of its elements will very
likely result in an error in your analysis.

You may wish, though, to set out the complete rule first, and then go through the analysis
but how you present your responses is strictly up to you.

I cannot stress enough that you make sure you consider any defenses there may be and
any exceptions that may apply.

November 2, 2013 12:11 PM