My Order #264046460
Dr. Joe & Cindy
The parents of Cindy filed a court motion against Dr. Joe on the grounds of negligence. In the first place, Cindy was not primarily Dr. Joe’s patient. Did Dr. Joe owe any duty of care to Cindy? Did Dr. Joe act in a manner which caused the death of Cindy? Did Dr. Joe fail to act proximately leading to the death of Cindy?
For any court of law to prove negligence under the law torts, the plaintiff must prove to the judge beyond any reasonable doubts that the defendant had a duty of care to the plaintiff. Besides, the court is at discretion to determine if the defendant failed by not following set standards of conduct or did what an ordinary man would not do thus amounting to negligent conduct causing harm to the plaintiff. Additionally, the actions of the defendant should amount to the injury or cause damage to the plaintiff. Negligence
In the first place, Cindy was not a patient of Dr. Joe. It is not to say that the doctor had no duty of care to warn her especially if he understood the danger she was in and that he knew Norman suffered psychotic episodes (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 425). Dr. Joe had the duty of care of warning Cindy or the parents. If Dr. Joe had warned Cindy, she couldn’t have died.
Dr. Joe was at discretion to understand Norman was a real danger to Cindy, but he did not act to protect Cindy from the imminent threat. It is for this reason that the court should rule against the Doctor for breach of duty and fail to act accordingly thus leading to the death of Cindy. As the Doctor one is required to assume every responsibility and no matter if he or she is your patient doctors should conduct themselves in accordance with set medical standards.
Jim Morrison & DiMex
Jim goes to court to press charges against D. Corp on the grounds of breach of contract. D. Corp defends himself because the terms of the contract were vague and that the agreement was not enforceable in the eyes of the law. How would you rule on whether the conditions were too indefinite and ambiguous to be enforceable?
Breach of contract heightens failing to execute the terms and conditions outlined in the agreement without a legit legal justification (Haggerty v. Warner (1953) 115 C.A. 2d 468). The terms of the agreement can be orally or written. The breach takes various forms including failing to complete specific task, failing to pay in full or on time, non-delivery of goods on time, substitution of products or acting in a manner not subscribed in the agreement. A contract is just like an agreement, but in this case, it constitutes legal rights and obligations.
Responding to the case above, the terms of the contract were not too indefinite or vague to be enforceable. The contract states plainly the amount or percentage or the share Jim would receive for any sale he makes and how the payments are made with the dates of payment stipulated.
After a comprehensive analysis on the above case, it is apparent that the contract was breached and it never constituted vague terms to be enforced or indefinite. Therefore, Jim Morrison can institute legal proceedings against D. Corp for violating the contract.
Dave & CUSD
Dave thinks he is not bound by the bid because it was because of a mistake. CUSD on the flip side demands Dave to be held responsible for his proposal. They argue that they fixed the error, and that it was not their fault that Dave’s mail person was out sick. Who should prevail?
The bid offered to every contractor for specific tasks constitute an offer. For a contract to be valid it should possess all the elements of a contract, i.e., offer, acceptance, communication, parties to the contact and legal rights (Architects & Contractors Estimating Services, Inc. v. Smith (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 1001, 211 Cal.Rptr. 45.) When offer is made the offeree should accept to constitute a legal contract. A contact arise when there is meeting of minds and parties to it accept liability. Dave accepted the offer by CUSD and when an issue arose all bidders were communicated through email which is the safest and promptly method of communication.
Dave should be held responsible for his bid because the mistake for failing to read the mail arise from his mailman. CUSD did all it was at their disposal to pass the intended message by sending the email to all the bidders. Dave got the feedback but it the mailman who was sick that escalated the issue. CUSD send the message to Dave explaining the entire issue of tender errors and notify all bidders concerning the issue. Parties to the contract should communicated and ensure the right information is reached to the intended parties.
Dave should be held responsible for his bid. Dave cannot evade responsibility citing issue of mailman and from the issue CUSD did what it was on their disposal to send information to all bidders concerning the issue at hand.
Architects & Contractors Estimating Services, Inc. v. Smith (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 1001 , 211 Cal.Rptr. 45
Haggerty v. Warner (1953) 115 C.A. 2d 468.
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 425