1. The legal implications involved in scenario can be explained by the following descriptions:
a) Zachary seems to be to negative character. He might respond Jason’s offer a bit early than 60 days but he took a lot of time and keeping in view his previous offer its is really strange that he took 60 days to respond that offer. He accepted Jason’s $25,000 but in reality the situation seems entirely different.
b) It seems that Zachary wanted to take the Jason’s collection for free that’s why he created a confusing situation by first accepting the Jason’s offer and later on claiming it as too high. He offered Jason $22,000 just to gain some time and make the situation ambiguous.
c) This is the turning point of the scenario. It is might possible that Zachary killed the Jason or even it is not the case still this question stays there that why Zachary too so much time to respond Jason. Jason might have naturally died but his death is a critical aspect of whole scenario.
d) It was pretty much on the cards that after the death of Jason any incident like that might happen because there were two parties involved in purchasing the collection but none of them got that. So it might be possible that either of two parties have burnt the collection. Most probably Zachary did it.
e) Zachary was a clever player he played the entire game intelligently but he was disappointed when Jason rejected his offer when he found Zachary complaining about the offer of $25,000. So this fact strengths the argument that Zachary killed the Jason.
f) Smithson seemed a fine gentleman he offered Jason $30,000 when he saw that Zachary was making lame excuses. Jason has also accepted Smithson’s offer so it is pretty clear that in the whole Scenario Zachary was the one who might have the loss. For this purpose he did not only killed Jason but ruined his collection as well so that Smithson could not take it either.
Based on all above speculations and arguments it is pretty clear that Jason was a gentleman who just wanted to sell his collection but a criminal minded individual took his life and ruined his collection as well. In nutshell Zachary is the culprit and he must be sentenced for the crimes he has committed.
2. The answers of each part are given below:
a) In this scenario it is pretty clear that the passenger who pushed or jolted Charlotte did not know her otherwise it must have been mentioned in the situation so personal enmity is out of the question. In order to file the case Charlotte must blame the Subway management authority because it was the responsibility of authority to manage the number of passengers in the train. Moreover she might have been accused state because eventually state owns the transit system. Accordingly Defense might have argued that it is not a fault of subway management or transit system as it can happen to anyone and with such a huge population it is quite common as well.
b) In the first situation Dallas must have been sentenced for threatening Gruber for selling his car by force. In the second situation Dallas must be punished as well as he threatened the life of a citizen, which is illegal as well. Moreover life of Gruber and that stranger are equally important in terms of law so punishment is necessary for Dallas. In the third situation when Gruber has sold his car to Hussain the dispute must be ended because someone else than Gruber now owns the apple of discord.
3. The answers are given below:
a) She may claim for the fraud because according to the elements of fraud there must be some verbal or written agreement within the parties which if violated can be termed as fraud. All elements are not met but some major elements are met for sure which are enough to declare the situation as a fraud. In the scenario the company has made a false offer to Jill just to hire her for taking her expertise but after some time when the company thought that Jill is of no use they withdrawn all the offers made to her.
b) It might be possible that company is claiming the right thing about withdrawn of the offer. It might be possible that company’s major client has left the company and company is not in a position to pay such lucrative offers to its employees. It is not out of the question that company’s financial position is really that much poor
that it could not give the promised offers and bonuses to its employees.
4. Answers are provided in following lines:
a) Harris is a greedy person and therefore he did a fraud with Pringle but after that he realized the fact of discovery of the oil he admitted his own fact just because of possession of the oil. In this situation Harris must be punished for the fraud he made the possession of his land must be given to the Pringle.
b) Children and Grandchildren of Joan might claim that Cheatham has forced Joan to do that action because she was dependent on Cheatham. It is might be possible that Cheatham has taken the deed in an illegal manner so it is quite possible for the children to file a case against Chatham. The elements of cause of action against Cheatham include the miserable condition of Joan and her dependency on Cheatham as well.
5. Answers are provided below:
a) Sam must be punished for his negligence because when he was taking Nathan to the hospital he must have been driven the car with immense care. It might be possible that court of law might relax his punishment because he was helping an injured person but still he committed a crime and he must be punished for that as well.
b) The award must be given to the people who really deserved that and the process should also be made fool proof as well. It can be stated that according to the situation Award has no legal implications.
6. Legal implications:
1. As per the first case is concern in which a person Albert who have the liability of $5000 and he has to pay this amount to his cousin but because of his weak liquidity position he is not able to pay its liabilities. Moreover the Albert has got bankrupt but he has promised to his cousin that he will pay his loan within year. This is a legal contract because it has made a promise so it is an oral contract and he has to pay is liabilities within a year
1. In second case charlotte is a party in a contract in which the other party Sam has promised him to pay her all expenditures regarding his studies and he has promised that after graduation he will pay her all expenditures which she is incurring on him. They got married but later on they are not interested of being life partners in the futures so now they have become two different legal parties. Even though there was no legal agreement among these parties but still one part has promised with the other one to discharge his liabilities in future so the Sam is liable to pay off his all amount to the charlotte which she has incurred on the Sam’s graduation until unless Charlotte discharge him from her liabilities.
1. Smith has able to arrange the amount of $ 2500 and he has offered his Jones that if he is satisfied by having this amount than he can pay it in response of his liability of the $ 5000. Now the legal implication of this case is dependent upon the scenario and the circumstance in which this offer has made to Jones by smith. If Jones willingly accepts this amount and satisfied by having the half of whole liability than there are no further obligations on smith. But in case of the smith is forcing to pay this amount and he is not agreed to pay the whole liability than the smith still have the obligations and liability to pay liability to Jones.
1. In other case in which the Gregory who is a senior student has caught by the police because he was found to be involved in the use of drugs, Police discharge Gregory and the father of Gregory has promised him that if he will not be involved in the drugs later on in future he will give him the Car as a gift. Now the Gregory has passed the Drug test. As it was a promise so there are legal implications on the father to full fill his liability. It was a conditional promise and the Gregory has full fill his liability from his end now it’s up to his father to pay off his liability in the form of fulfilling his promise.
obahas
bl_.docx
0
