Case Study

Legal Opinion
This project will help you to understand legal reasoning; and develop a basic skill identifying potential legal reasons for liability.

Part 1: Write a legal opinion responding to this set of facts and questions pertaining to torts:

On September 26, 2011, Janice was working at the General Services Administration (GSA) in Washington, DC. According to Janice, while she was sitting in a restroom stall, she heard a loud noise and then a sharp pain. In fact, the toilet exploded. Soon thereafter, she was transported to the hospital with serious injuries.

It turns out that, prior to the incident, a memo was sent around to the employees, stating:

DO NOT flush toilets or use any domestic water. Due to a mechanical failure, there is high air pressure in the domestic water system that resulted in damage to toilets. The engineering staff is working to correct the issue,” the memo said. “There has been damage to flushed toilets that has resulted in injuries. We will announce when the issue is resolved.

Janice asks you to consider representing her to sue for her injuries. She is considering suing the building’s owner, the toilet manufacturer, those in charge of facility engineers (particularly, those in charge of the plumbing, and the GSA (the employer), but she wants to know what theory (or theories) of liability to use.

What party or parties could potentially be liable (and why, i.e., what theory of liability (what cause of action)))? (In your answer included the required elements needed to prove each theory of liability and why each requirement is or is not fulfilled.)

If there are any defenses to each theory of liability, indicate which defense(s) apply to possibly relieve the defendant of liability.

Part 2: Write a legal opinion responding to this set of facts and questions pertaining to contract law:

Car Parts R Us (CPRU) buys/sells car parts on a regular basis. They often sell car parts and supplies to Packer Autos, who has a small car parts store and garage. Over the phone, they reach an oral agreement regarding the sale of 10 sets of tires (value of $200 per set).

Did the contract between these parties have to be in writing per the statute of frauds? (yes or no) Why or why not? The next day, CPRU sends a letter to Packer Autos detailing the terms of the sale. The store manager at Packer Autos receives the letter and tosses it on a pile on his messy desk and promptly forgets about it. In three weeks, pursuant to their agreement, CPRU ships the tires to Packer Autos. Packer Autos refuses delivery and claims there was never a valid contract because they never signed anything.

Can CPRU enforce the contract against Packer Autos? (yes or no) Why or why not?

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A GOOD DISCOUNT