1) John H. Surratt was one of John Wilkes Boothâ€™s alleged accomplices in the murder of President Lincoln. On April 29, 1865, the Secretary of War issued and caused to be published in newspapers the following proclamation: â€œ$25,000 reward for the apprehension of John H. Surratt and liberal rewards for any information that leads to the arrest of John H. Surratt.â€ On November 24, 1865, President Johnson revoked the reward and published the revocation in the newspapers. Henry B. St. Marie learned of the reward but left for Rome prior to its revocation. In Rome, St. Marie discovered Surrattâ€™s whereabouts. In April, 1866 unaware that the reward had been revoked, he reported this information to U.S. officials. Based on this information Surratt was arrested. The government denied St. Marie the reward.
a. Should Marie have received the reward? Explain. Be sure to include in the discussion any theories of recovery Marie would argue as well as those the government would use to defeat Marie.
b. If Marie were to get the award, would he be entitled to the full $25,000? Explain.
c. What if this had occurred in the year 2010 and the reward was published not in a newspaper but on the Internet as was the revocation. Would the result be the same? Would it be the same if the award was published on the Internet, but the revocation in the newspaper? Explain
2) Stephen Brooks was employed as a sales representative for the Bob King Mitsubishi car dealership. Reba Stanley, age eighteen, met with Brooks to test drive a Mitsubishi pickup truck. During the test drive, Brooks assaulted Stanley â€œby touching and grabbing her arms, hands, groin area, and breasts. He also exposed his genitals and placed her hand on his private parts.â€ When they returned from the test drive, Brooks took her to the Mitsubishi service department â€œand exposed himself again and tried to force her to touch him.â€ Stanley was able to free herself and left the dealership. Brooks was later convicted on charges arising out of the incident. Stanley sued both Brooks and the car dealership, claiming the she suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress.
a. What must Stanley prove in order to win her case and why.
b. The dealership argued that the case against them should be dropped as they were not responsible for Brookâ€™s actions, and asked the court to grant a motion for summary judgment. The defense argues that the motion should be denied under the doctrine of â€œrespondeat superiorâ€. Should the court grant the motion? If so why or if not why not?
10 % discount on an order above
Use the following coupon code :
CHECK ORDER PAGE