Description of this paper

Oh! Henry was a hit, breaking box-office records.

Description

solution


Question

SAM- THE FINAL CRUSADE;Oh! Henry was a hit, breaking box-office records. Studs retired from show business and is now a;professor at a private graduate school in California. Kissinger is now considered by the public to be a;hero and has opened Built Like Henry Gyms all over the United States. Each new member is given;a picture of Henry posing in workout briefs. The picture has been altered by placing Henrys head on;Studs body.;Sam is now determined to enter the toy business by selling Super Hero Henry dolls. He entered;into a contract with Warren Peace to manufacture the dolls in Spain. Peace purchased two million;old G.I. Joe dolls and simply replaced the Joe heads with Henry heads. However, Warrens;workers were careless in attaching the heads to Joes body and left sharp staple edges on the back of;the dolls neck. These edges could be seen only with close visual inspection.;Sam entered into a verbal agreement with Norman Conquest to be Sams agent in France and his;distributor in England. When negotiating the deal with Conquest, Sam stated, These dolls are top;quality-mint condition.;Tired of the unethical Hollywood people, Sam made a large down payment on a farm to the Count;DeMoney Bank. Sam planted a few crops, and then decided to write a new book titled;Hemingways Guide to Professional Ethics. Sam decided that he needed the support of a respected;member of society to endorse the book. He entered into a partnership with the Rev. Ernest Lee;Sincere, the famous television minister. Sam and Ernest Lee signed a partnership agreement a;decided to call the new firm, Ernest Hemingway Publishing.;Sam and Ernest later sold 1,000,000 shares of Ernest Hemingway, Inc. to members of the church;and to faithful viewers. Rev. Sincere told the faithful that God had told him to tell the people that;God wanted then to invest in Ernest Hemingway, Inc. Sam also traded 500,000 shares to his;neighbor oil-rich Sheik Rattelennroll in exchange for a one-fifth ownership in the Sheiks oil refinery.;The refinery, located next to Sams farm, was in serious financial trouble and was currently being;managed by its major creditor, Count DeMoney. Sam did not know of these financial problems but;wanted to do the trade because Count DeMoney had advised Sam that this was a good investment.;Later Sam told his Administrative Assistant, Paige Turner, that she could keep her job if she would;have sex with him. The next day, Amanda Reckenwith told Sam that she was going to quit so that she;could marry the bright young grocery clerk, Vinny. Sam suggested that Amanda have sex with him;before she quit. Amanda got mad and destroyed Sams office. Sam tried to stop her, but was no;match for the angry Amanda. Two months later, when Sam got out of the hospital, he discovered;that Paige Turner had been forging his name to checks for over two years, and that he had lost most;of his money. None of Sams crops grew due to pollution from the refinery. Sam is now broke and is;considering filing Bankruptcy, but is uncertain as to which type of bankruptcy he should file. Count;DeMoney was to foreclose on the farm. Fed up with ruthless business people Sam was to teach;business ethics with his friend Studley.;Sams twenty-one year old nephew Little Foster Child cut his hand when he threw his Henry doll at;Allison Wonderland, a passing motorcycle driver.;This is my paper;1.Oh! Henry was a hit, breaking box-office records. Studs retired from show;business and is now a professor at a private graduate school in California.;Kissinger is now considered by the public to be a hero and has opened Built Like;Henry Gyms all over the United States. Each new member is given a picture of;Henry posing in workout briefs. The picture has been altered by placing Henrys;head on Studs body.;Facts: The movie Oh! Henry was a huge success, becoming one of the most;popular movies across the country. Kissinger, the producer of the film, has;opened gyms all across the country with the name Built Like Henry, taken from;the film. Each new member of these gyms is given a picture of Henry, however;the picture has been altered to put Henrys head on top of Studs body.;Issue: Is whether or not Studs image of his body is his personal property, and if;Kissingers utilizing that image constitutes a violation of the tort of conversion.;Was the usage of this Studs image in this manner detrimental to Studs?;Law: (Conversion). Britannica Online defines conversion as in law;unauthorized possession of personal property causing curtailment of the owners;possession or alteration of the property. The essence of conversion is not benefit;to the wrongful taker but detriment to the rightful owner.1 Conversion deals with;the taking of personal property, in this case the image of Studs body, and then;using that property as if it was your own.;Application: Given the fact that Studs is no longer in the movie business it could;be argued that Kissingers utilizing Studs image is no longer detrimental to;Studs. However at the same time Studs is now a professor at a private graduate;school in California, where image is usually very important to the success of a;persons career. Therefore it can be argued that by using studs body image, most;likely wearing little clothes as it is for a gym, that his professional career can be;hindered.;Conclusion: Given the circumstances and potential consequences of Kissingers;acquisition of Studs image it is the opinion of this court that Kissingers actions;would constitute a violation of the tort of conversion. Studs reputation and image;is very important for his professional career as a professor, and having partially;clothed photographs of him being distributed is a negative on that career.;Therefore Kissingers utilizing Studs image is a violation of conversion.;Facts: The Built Like Henry gym gives out free photographs of Henrys face;with Studs body to newly joined members of the gym.;Issue: Whether or not the distribution of these photographs constitutes false;advertising as they are showing the potential for false results.;Law: (False Advertising). In the United States the Federal Trade Commission;was established to unfair or deceptive acts or promises in commerce.2 Deceptive;advertising is considered illegal when it entices the consumer to purchase a;product that they otherwise would not have.;Application: Given the fact that this is a gym and altering photographs to show;untrue results can entice people to join a gym they normally would not have.;Under this assumption it is possible to see how this image would constitute false;advertising. However what must also be considered is the timing in which the;photograph was distributed. In this case it was given to members for signing up;therefore the photography did not play a part in their decision to sign up.;Conclusion: In this case false advertising would not apply because the members;of the gym were being given a photograph after they had already joined the gym.;If they had been given the photograph before they joined then the new members;would be able to make a claim for false advertising, however because this is not;the case there is no claim for false advertising.;2. Sam is now determined to enter the toy business by selling Super Hero Henry;dolls. He entered into a contract with Warren Peace to manufacture the dolls in;Spain. Peace purchased two million old G.I. Joe dolls and simply replaced;the Joe heads with Henry heads. However, Warrens workers were;careless in attaching the heads to Joes body and left sharp staple edges on the;back of the dolls neck. These edges could be seen only with close visual;inspection.;Facts: Sam entered the toy business by purchasing two million G.I. Joe dolls;and then swapped the heads with Henry heads.;Issue: Whether or not Kissinger is in violation of trademark and copyright;infringement with G.I. Joe by using their products and only altering them;slightly for their own profit?;Law: (Trademark). The book describes a trademark as any distinctive word;name, symbol, or device (image or appearance), or combination thereof that an;entity uses to distinguish its goods or services from those of others. The owner;has the exclusive right to use that mark or trade dress. 3 The initial trademark is;granted for a 5yr period, then after that you have to reapply and its good for;10yrs thereafter. You can renew it as many times as you want as long as its in;use.;Application: G.I. Joe is a well established figure in the world marketplace. It is;almost recognizable everywhere in the world. As an established figure in the;marketplace G.I. Joe has been around for decades, and has always continued to;renew their trademarks. By taking G.I. Joes bodies that are easily recognized;they have violated G.I. Joes right to their own image.;Conclusion: Based upon the above conditions and arguments it is fairly easy to;determine that Sam is in violation of G.I. Joes trademark. By using G.I. Joe dolls;for his own purpose Sam is likely drawing consumers who recognize the product;as something of quality, and therefore is violating G.I. Joes right to distinguish;itself from others and capitalize on that difference.;Facts: The manufacturers workers will careless and irresponsible when;switching the heads of the dolls and left sharp staple edges on the back of the;dolls neck.;Issue: Whether or not Sam is liable for the products defects.;Law: (Manufacture Liability and Strict Liability). This law states that the;manufacturer or distributor is reliable for inspecting the product before taking;delivery. They have a responsibility to ensure that the product meets the standards;and qualifications they had set before they accept delivery of the product. They;are also responsible for injuries resulting of defects of product.;Application: Sam had the responsibility to check and inspect his products before;he took delivery or allowed shipment to the different distribution channels he had;previously established. Additionally as the manufacturer of the products and lead;behind them he is responsible for the defects that arise due to shoddy production.;Sam could also be considered to be guilty of negligence as he did not exercise due;care in the hiring, production, and distribution of his product, which will most;likely result in the injury of small children who are not capable of carefully;inspecting the products for themselves before using them.;Conclusion: Based upon the facts of the case and arguments made it is the;opinion of this court that Sam and the manufacturer shall be held liable for their;products. They were both careless and negligent in the production and distribution;of the product, and both had the responsibility to inspect the finished goods for;defects before sending them out for sale. Therefore Sam and the manufacturer;shall both be held responsible for any injuries that arise out of the defects of the;product.;3. Sam entered into a verbal agreement with Norman Conquest to be Sams agent;in France and his distributor in England. When negotiating the deal with;Conquest, Sam stated, These dolls are top quality-mint condition.;Facts: Sam and Norman Conquest entered into a deal where Norman would be;Sams agent in France and distributor in England. When making the deal Sam told;Norman that the Henry dolls were top quality-mint condition.;Issue: Whether or not Sam committed puffery, and if Norman Conquest should;have known it was puffery or had reason to believe Sams statements were true.;Law: (Puffery). Puffery refers to an exaggeration or statement that no reasonable;person would take as factual. It often occurs in the context of advertising and;promotional testimonials.4 Puffery is not illegal as any reasonable person would;recognize the statements as untrue and exaggerated and would not rely upon them;for making their decision, as one does with fraudulent misrepresentation.;Application: Norman Conquest is a business man and should be aware of puffery;and when it is being used. It is more than likely that he has been involved in these;types of deals before, so he should have some understanding of what Sam is;saying and how much of it is exaggerations. Additionally Sam is hiring Norman;as an agent as well as a distributor, which means that Norman should have some;knowledge of the manufacturing process, thereby entitling him to knowing how;the dolls are created. Therefore he should know that they dolls are not in mint;condition like Sam is saying.;Conclusion: It is the opinion of this court that Sam is guilty of nothing besides;puffery, which is not illegal. Norman Conquest had the experience and was in the;position to where he should have known that Sam was merely hyping his product.;Therefore Sam bears no responsibility on Normans actions.;Facts: While negotiating a deal to be Sams distributor in England, Sam and;Norman also came to the agreement that Norman would be Sams agent in;France.;Issue: Whether or not Norman Conquest is Sams agent in France based solely on;a verbal agreement, and therefore caries all the rights and responsibilities;associated with that position.;Law: (Agency and Formation). According to the textbook many express agency;relationships are created by oral agreement and are not based on a written;contract.5 Two parties can agree to enter into an agency agreement if it is their;desire to do so. Additionally an agency can be formed through the actions of the;two parties. If they act as though an agency exists then one could be considered to;exist as long as there is an applied agreement an agency exists. (Statue of Frauds).;There is another legal requirement under the Statue of Frauds, more specifically;the one-year rule that states that if a contract cannot be carried out within one year;of the formation date then the agreement needs to be in writing, listing the;conditions of the contract and the parties.;Application: An agency exists if two parties agree to enter into an agency, or if;their conduct implies that they have some form of an arrangement. In the process;of creating a distribution agreement Norman verbally agreed to become Sams;agent in the country of France. This means that Norman would act on behalf of;Sam, and that Sam would be bound to the decisions and promises that Norman;made for Sam. Norman would not be considered to be an employee of Sam, as;Sam does not control the daily operations and decisions of Norman, thus he does;not have the contractual responsibilities an employer would have for a normal;employee. However if the distribution and duties that Norman assigned himself to;cannot be concluded in a year then the agency and contract would have to be;formed in writing.;Conclusion: It is reasonable to conclude that Norman would be considered an;agent of Sam in France as this is the conditions they agreed upon. Additionally as;a distributor for Sam, they have established a further level of the relationship that;adds credibility to Normans status as an agent of Sam. The only argument to this;would be based upon the one-year rule, however the case does not provide enough;information to use this idea as a determinant.;4. Tired of the unethical Hollywood people, Sam made a large down payment on a;farm to the Count DeMoney Bank. Sam planted a few crops, and then decided;to write a new book titled, Hemingways Guide to Professional Ethics. Sam;decided that he needed the support of a respected member of society to endorse;the book. He entered into a partnership with the Rev. Ernest Lee Sincere, the;famous television minister. Sam and Ernest Lee signed a partnership;agreement a decided to call the new firm, Ernest Hemingway Publishing.;Facts: Sam decided to write his own book entitled Hemingways Guide to;Professional Ethics. Sam then went into partnership with the Reverend Ernest;Lee Sincere and created a publishing firm called Ernest Hemmingway;Publishing.;Issue: Is Sam, by using and profiting from Ernest Hemmingways name and;reputation without the knowledge or approval of his family, guilty of copyright;infringement and the violation of copyright laws?;Law: (Copyright and Copyright Infringement);Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978;Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a;work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the;work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for;a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of;the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976;extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting;on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round;Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of;protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further;extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an;additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of;protection of 95 years.6;Application: Given the fact that Ernest Hemmingway died in July of 1961 there;is no possible way for the copyright applied to Ernest Hemmingway to have;expired. The law extends the same copyright protection to all works and titles;created before the Copyright Act of 1976 as if they were created after. The law;also protects Ernest Hemmingways name and reputation as part of the act. It is;expected that upon seeing Ernest Hemmingway Publishing above a door or on;some work that they would expect it to be in association with the well-known;Ernest Hemmingway. Therefore it is reasonable to see that Sam is in violation of;copyright law.;Conclusion: If Sam continues to use Ernest Hemmingways name for his own use;than he will be committing copyright infringement. Sam will not qualify for an;exception to the copyright because he plans to profit off of Hemmingways;reputation, granted it may not be his sole use of the name but that will be the;result. Sams actions will reflect upon and impact the reputation of Ernest;Hemmingway, who is still protected under copyright laws. Therefore it is the;opinion of this court that Sam is in violation of copyright law.;Facts: Sam decided to write his own book entitled Hemingways Guide to;Professional Ethics. Sam then went into partnership with the Reverend Ernest;Lee Sincere and created a publishing firm called Ernest Hemmingway;Publishing.;Issue: Is Sam and Reverend Sincere guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation with;the purpose of deceiving the public and consumers to buy Sams new book.;Law: (Fraudulent Misrepresentation) Any misrepresentation, either by;misstatement or omission of a material fact, knowingly made with the intention of;deceiving another and on which a reasonable person would and does rely to his or;her detriment.;Application: It is reasonable to assume that a person purchasing a book entitled;Hemmingways Guide to Professional Ethics, published by the company;Ernest Hemmingway Publishing is going to expect the book to have been;written and endorsed by the real Ernest Hemmingway. Sam and Reverend Sincere;are both successful businessmen, and know the impact that these names will have;on the public. They are blatantly misleading the public to their detriment in order;to make a profit.;Conclusion: Based upon the facts and arguments of the case it is reasonable to;conclude that Sam and Reverend Sincere are guilty of fraudulent;misrepresentation. They are misrepresenting who the publisher and author is, with;the intent of deceiving the buyer and convincing them to purchase a product they;normally probably would not have purchased.;5. Sam and Ernest later sold 1,000,000 shares of Ernest Hemingway, Inc. to;members of the church and to faithful viewers. Rev. Sincere told the faithful;that God had told him to tell the people that God wanted then to invest in;Ernest Hemingway, Inc. Sam also traded 500,000 shares to his neighbor oilrich Sheik Rattelennroll in exchange for a one-fifth ownership in the Sheiks;oil refinery. The refinery, located next to Sams farm, was in serious financial;trouble and was currently being managed by its major creditor, Count;DeMoney. Sam did not know of these financial problems but wanted to do the;trade because Count DeMoney had advised Sam that this was a good;investment.;Facts: Sam and Ernest went into business together as partners but later sold;1,000,000 shares of Ernest Hemmingway, Inc. to members of Reverend;Sinceres church. Sam also traded 500,000 shares of the company for one fifth;ownership in his neighbors oil refinery.;Issue: What form of business Sam and Reverend Sincere are utilizing, and what;liability do they and their shareholders have.;Law: (Corporation by Estoppel). Corporation by estoppel occurs when a;company which operates as if it were a corporation although it has not completed;the legal steps to become incorporated (has not filed its Articles). The court;temporarily treats the corporation as if it were legal in order to avoid unfairness to;people who thought the corporation was legal.7 The point of this is so that a;partnership will be is treated as a corporation to protect its investors. The original;partners still have full liability, while their shareholders are only liable for;whatever stock they have purchased.;Application: Sam and Reverend Sincere joined together in a partnership to sell;their book. However Sam and the Reverend came up with the idea of selling;shares to members of the Reverends church. It is reasonable to assume that they;did this as a sort of scam in order to make more money. Therefore their actions;have led to create a corporation by estoppel, in which as far as liability goes their;investors are protected to the amount of their initial investment, and are not;treated like partners.;Conclusion: Based upon the arguments and facts of the case it is reasonable to;conclude that a corporation by estoppel exists. Sam and Reverend Sincere as the;original partners still share joint and unlimited liability. The investors who;purchased shares however are limited to the total amount that they invested with;the purchasing of their shares.;Facts: In an effort to bring in additional money Reverend Sincere told the;members of his church to buy shares in his corporation.;Issue: Whether the Reverend Sincere has taken advantage of his position as a;Reverend, by telling his church that God told them to buy shares in his;corporation, and thereby benefiting his corporation monetarily.;Law: (Agency Law and Conflict of Interest). Conflict of interests can be defined;as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or;governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in;some way for their personal or corporate benefit.8;Application: As a minister Reverend Sincere is an agent of the church he belongs;to. As such he has a responsibility to the members of his organization to give;them fair and truthful information. Reverend Sincere took advantage of his;position to manipulate those who follow him in order to benefit his corporation;economically. The Reverend as a respected official in a trustworthy position knew;that he would be able to convince people to do what he wanted to, and did not;look out for their best interests as is his responsibility.;Conclusion: It is reasonable to conclude that the Reverend Sincere is in fact;guilty of having a conflict of interest. As a Reverend it is his responsibility to be;truthful and honest with his followers, and to give them the advice that they;deserve. The Reverend knows what he is doing is wrong, but continues to lie and;exploit his position within the community to trick people into investing into his;corporation, a corporation that is really a partnership.;6. Later Sam told his Administrative Assistant, Paige Turner, that she could keep;her job if she would have sex with him. The next day, Amanda Reckenwith told;Sam that she was going to quit so that she could marry the bright young;grocery clerk, Vinny. Sam suggested that Amanda have sex with him before she;quit. Amanda got mad and destroyed Sams office. Sam tried to stop her, but;was no match for the angry Amanda. Two months later, when Sam got out of;the hospital, he discovered that Paige Turner had been forging his name to;checks for over two years, and that he had lost most of his money. None of;Sams crops grew due to pollution from the refinery. Sam is now broke and is;considering filing Bankruptcy, but is uncertain as to which type of bankruptcy;he should file. Count DeMoney was to foreclose on the farm. Fed up with;ruthless business people Sam was to teach business ethics with his friend;Studley.;Facts: Sam told his administrative assistant, Paige Turner, that he wouldnt;terminate her if she would have sex with him. Sam also later told Amanda;Reckenwith that she should have sex with him before she quit her job.;Issue: Is Sam guilty of committing multiple acts of sexual harassment in the;workplace?;Law: (Sexual Harassment). Quid Pro Quo harassment occurs when sexual;favors are demanded in return for job opportunities, promotions, salary increases;or other benefits.9 Sexual harassment can also take the form of hostileenvironment. This occurs when a person is subjected to unwanted sexual;advances.;Application: Quid Pro Quo sexual harassment pertains to the offering of business;advantages for sexual favors. Sam did this when he told Paige Turner, his;secretary that he would not terminate her and allow her to keep her job if she were;to sleep with him. This is a clear violation of the terms of sexual harassment as it;gave her a business and fiscal reason to sleep with her employer, even though it;was something she had no desire to do. Additionally, Sam forcefully came onto;one of his other employees, Amanda Reckenwith, when she told him that she was;going to quit the company. By telling her that she should sleep with him before;she quit Sam was committing yet another act of sexual harassment, more;specifically in the form of creating a hostile-environment.;Conclusion: It is clear to see that Sam if guilty of committing multiple cases of;sexual harassment in both of its forms.;Facts: After Sam asks Amanda Reckenwith to sleep with him before quitting her;job, she decided to destroy Sams office and most of his personal property.;Issue: What violations of destruction of personal property is Amanda guilty of?;Whether or not the actions of Amanda were provoked and justified by Sams;actions.;Law: (Willful and Malicious Destruction of Personal Property). Willful and;malicious destruction of personal property is committed when a person;intentionally and maliciously destroys or harms the personal property of another;person. The punishments vary dependent upon the cost of the possessions;destroyed, and previous infractions committed by the offending party.;Application: Even though the actions committed by Sam were despicable they;were not violent in nature or threatening to Amandas wellbeing. Therefore;Amandas actions of destroying Sams personal property were not justified. She is;of a sound mind and sufficient age to know what harm her actions were causing;and was not done on accident. She intentionally damaged and destroyed most of;Sams positions as an act of hatred towards Sam.;Conclusion: Based upon the above arguments and facts of the Case this court;finds that Amanda Reckenwith is guilty of the tort of willful and malicious;destruction of personal property.;Facts: Sams secretary, Paige Turner, has been forging checks in Sams name for;over two years. When Sam gets out of the hospital he notices that almost all of his;money is missing.;Issue: Is Paige guilty of forgery, or as Sams employee was she right in using his;name to make purchases.;Law: (Checks Bearing Forged Signatures). The bank is liable to repay the owner;of a checking account of any forged checks that have been paid out. This is why;banks collect signature cards when creating an account, so they are able to;identify real and forged signatures. However the bank is entitled to reclaim losses;from the party that presents the forged check in the first place, as they are the ones;certifying that no alterations have been made to the check.;Application: Paige Turner, an employee of Sam, forged his signature on checks;that were personal in nature and not applicable to business expenses. As an agent;of Sam she is entitled to enter into deals for Sam, however she is never allowed to;forge his signature on legal documents, or checks. By doing so she was violating;her role as an agent, while breaking the law and stealing from Sam in the process.;The bank in which Sams account was at had a responsibility to check the;signatures on all checks, so they are liable for the money lost by Sam throughout;this process. The bank may seek legal and economic restitution from Paige, as she;was the one both forging and presenting the checks assuring their accuracy and;validity.;Conclusion: Based upon the arguments and facts of the case this court determines;that Paige Turner is guilty of forging signatures on checks. Being an employee of;Sam does not entitle her to use his personal checking account, nor does it excuse;the forging of Sams signature. If Sam wanted his employees using the account it;would be a corporate account that had multiple signatures on file. Therefore this;court finds that Paige Turner is liable for the money that she spent under Sams;name.;Facts: Sam was in the hospital and when he was discharged he found out that;Paige Turner had been forging checks in his name for over two years. As a result;Sam had lost most of his money. Additionally none of Sams crops grew due to;pollution from a neighboring refinery.;Issue: Whether Sam should file for personal, Chapter 7 bankruptcy, or whether he;should file for Chapter 12, farmers bankruptcy.;Law: (Bankruptcy). Chapter 7 bankruptcy deals with personal bankruptcy. This;occurs when a person gets in over their head and their assets no longer exceed;their debts and they cannot make payments anymore. Chapter 12 bankruptcy is;also known as Farmers bankruptcy, as it was created to help out farmers during;times of struggle. In order to qualify for farmers bankruptcy at least 50% of your;income must be farm related, while more than 80% of your debt must be farm;related.;Application: Based upon the facts of the case it seems that Sam lost most of his;money due to the forgery conducted by Paige Turner. While most of his debt is;not farm related it is also unclear as to how much of Sams income is farm;related. Therefore based upon the restrictions of Chapter 12 and Chapter 7;bankruptcy Sam be filing for the personal, Chapter 7, bankruptcy.;Conclusion: It is safe to conclude that the majority of Sams debts were not a;result of his farming activities. Therefore he should file for Chapter 7, personal;bankruptcy.;7. Sams twenty-one year old nephew Little Foster Child cut his hand when he;threw his Henry doll at Allison Wonderland, a passing motorcycle driver.;Facts: Sams twenty-one year old nephew cut his hand on one of the Henry dolls;when he threw the doll at Allison, a passing motorcycle driver.;Issue: Whether Sams nephew is guilty of the torts of assault and battery for;throwing the doll at a passing motorist.;Law: (Assault and Battery). Assault is any intentional, unexcused act that creates;in another person a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive;contact is an assault. Battery is an unexcused and harmful or offensive physical;contact intentionally performed.;Application: Sams nephew threw his doll at a passing motorcycle driver for real;no apparent reason. It is reasonable to assume that his attack was not justified, as;the case gives no mention of previous meetings or knowledge of each other, nor;does it show any aggravation on Amandas part. The law states that assault;constitutes an intentional act, which in this case seems not to be the case.;However battery only has to be unexcused, which it was in this case. However it;is important to also consider the mental state of Sams nephew. If he is twentyone and playing with dolls there is a possibility that he is partially mentally;handicapped. Although it is also possible that he was merely looking at Sams;new business endeavor.;Conclusion: Based upon the facts of the case I would determine Sams nephews;guilt is contingent upon his mental capacity. If Sams nephew truly has the mind;of the child then this court cannot hold him liable for assault and battery, however;if he is in perfect mental condition then I would find Sams nephew to be guilty of;battery. As the attack did not see

 

Paper#32819 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $37
SiteLock