Who would like to challenge themselves?

[varik]

Please brief the following cases and write your opinion on the issue at hand. Anyone skilled in business law and the IRAC format is an ideal fit for these hypotheticals:

1. Theresa made a contract to sell to David the annual crop of grapes raised upon land owned by
Theresa. David agrees to pay a specified price, and the contract was to extend over a period of ten years. Theresa performed the contract for five years, then sold the land to Paul and "transferred" the contract as well to Paul, the purchaser. David refused to accept the grapes from Paul, contending that he had no contract with Paul and that he was not obligated to continue with the contract that he had made with Theresa. Paul then sold the grapes elsewhere at a lower price and brought this action to recover the difference from David. Will Paul be able to recover the difference from David?

2. NationsWay, Inc., a trucking company, declared bankruptcy in 2010. The employees of the company sued the president of NationsWay, contending she should be held personally liable for the unpaid wages and benefits. They based their cause of action on the fact that they had been hired by the president and that she had given them assurances that they had a permanent job. Is the president held personally liable for the wages of the corporation's former employees?

3. Mark was a buyer for Macy's men's department until he bought 1,000 Nehru jackets and, for that reason, was fired (Mark was sure there would be a comeback for the jacket). The next day, he prepared and signed a promissory note, in which Macy's was the payor, agreeing to pay $2,000 for 25 Pierre Cardin silk shirts, on the belief that Macy's would give him his job back. Pierre Cardin had never dealt with Mark or Macy's before. Macy's did not rehire Mark. Pierre Cardin immediately factored the note to "CASH-UP-FRONT, Inc", who is now seeking payment of the $2,000 from Macy's. Who is responsible for the $2,000 payable to Pierre Cardin under the promissory note?

4. The Delbert Vacuum Company manufactures vacuums and sells them through independent contractors. The distributors sell the vacuums door-to-door as independent contractors. Delbert installed and authorized Phil as a sales representative to sell their vacuum. Within a week, Phil was arrested for sexual battery on a woman, while demonstrating the machine. Following his arrest, it was disclosed that he was on parole for aggravated rape. Is the Delbert Company liable for the actions of Phil?

5. David claimed a right to take water from Paul's land. Paul denied the existence of such right and gave David a written notice that, should David continue to wrongfully take water, he would be charged $500 a day for each day thereafter that he removed water. David continued to take water. Paul brought an action against David, in which it was determined that David had no right to take water. Despite this, David continued to take water. Paul then brought this action to recover $500 a day for the period for which water had been taken after the notice. Paul's theory of action was that he had made David an offer to sell David water for $500 a day and that David had accepted the offer by continuing to take water. Is Paul's position supportable under the law?

6. James sold his car for $4,000 to Lloyd, who gave James what appeared to be a valid cashier's check in the sum of $4,000, but, ten days later, the cashier's check turned out to be counterfeit. Lloyd immediately sold the car to Roberts, for $5,000. The police could not locate the car, but James located it two years later. James sued Roberts to recover the car. As a defense to James' action, Roberts urges the trial court to apply UUC 2-403. Should the court apply UUC 2-403? Who will prevail?

Your opinion matters.

[ned]

Good luck with that.