Question 1

Filbert’s Meat Shop, LLC shipped to Sonic Taco, a company based in Yuma, Arizona, an order of chorizo and machaca beef. That same day, Filbert’s mailed an invoice for the order for $11,000, based on the understanding that an oral contract existed between the parties, whereby Sonic Taco had agreed to pay for the meat. Sonic Taco was engaged in the real estate business at this time and had earlier been approached by Filbert’s Meat to discuss that company’s real estate investment potential. Sonic Taco denied ever guaranteeing payment for the meat and raised the Uniform Commercial Codes Statute of Frauds, Section 2-201, as an affirmative defense. Filbert’s Meat Shop contended that because Sonic Taco was in the business of buying and selling real estate, they possessed knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices involved in the transaction here. After hearing the evidence, the court concluded as a matter of law that Sonic Taco did agree to pay for the meat and was liable to Filbert’s Meat Shop in the amount of $11,000. Sonic Taco appealed.

In your discussion post, address the following questions:

· Is this a case governed by the UCC?

· If it was under common law, is the result different than the UCC?

· How should the appeals court rule?

Your initial response should be a minimum of 200 words.

Question 2

Janice has been invited to appear on a home improvement show for the remodel of her summerhouse in Maine. Janice asks Mary to wallpaper her house in anticipation of the home improvement, and requests expensive custom wallpaper and a very intricate design application, for which the wallpaper would cost $5000, plus labor. Mary, excited for a very large job for her solo business, orders the intricate wallpaper and blocks off her calendar for the amount of time it will take to complete the job. After the paper has been ordered, Mary asks some friends to be available to complete the job in time for the show. Janice is informed that she will not be on the show and notifies Mary that she will not need the wallpaper.

In your discussion post, address the following questions:

· Does Mary have a case for reimbursement?

· Under what legal theory might she prevail and what are her damages, if any?

· What ethical theories might be applicable?

Your initial response should be a minimum of 200 words.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED. USING THE IRAC RULE.

THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE ANSWER SHOULD BE TO EACH QUESTIONS.

Issue: Terrance Hall, chairman of Bet-Air, Inc., was convicted of selling restricted military equipment parts to Iran. This was based on evidence, a shredded copy of meeting minutes that were obtained from a dumpster on Bet-Air property. Hall alleged that this evidence was obtained by U.S. Customs Agent William T. Parks by unlawful manners. He contended that Parks had to use a private road to reach the dumpster on Bet-Air’s private property (United States v. Hall, 1995).

Rule: The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable governmental violations of rights. Hall petitioned that the search that resulted in the shredded meeting minutes was unreasonable and violated his rights. The court must determine if the search was unreasonable, causing the evidence to be suppressed (Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert, McCrory, Perry, 2019).

Application: Hall has protection under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches or seizures on his private property. This is true given proper signage to alert someone where the private property begins and its borders. Agent Parks was able to travel down a road that was unmarked with good private property signage. Then he was able to gain easy access to a dumpster that was also unmarked and appeared to be on public property (Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert, McCrory, Perry, 2019).

Conclusion: The court determined based on the lack of proper signage, the search that resulted in the missing meeting notes was reasonable and would not be suppressed. If there had been proper signage to ensure that Agent Parks knew he was on private property when he was traveling down the private road and again when he was at the dumpster. This would have caused the search to be unreasonable since Hall has a reasonable right of protection against unreasonable searches. As an executive, proper signage needs to be installed to ensure everyone who enters the property is made aware they are not on private property.