Instruction(s): Please respond to the following two questions based on the hypothetical, using no more than 500 words per answer. Each question is worth 50 points and will be graded according to the rubric on the following page. USE IRAC FORMAT. Make sure to give the best arguments for both sides of the issue. Remember: there is no correct ultimate answer and I care much more about your ability to give me the best arguments for both sides. Please limit your discussion the facts as given in the hypothetical: dont discuss or assume additional facts. *** Garret and Kays Really Tremendous Oil Company (GKRTOC) ships oil in tankers. The tankers sail from Alaska to California. Two years ago, GKRTOC hired Professor Haas as captain of one of its tankers, the Officer John Express. GKRTOC did not subject Professor Haas to any medical examination before hiring him, or at any time during the period of his employment. One night last year, Professor Haas consumed a single glass of wine at a party aboard the Officer John Express during one of its voyages. It was the first time Professor Haas ever drank, because he is a man of temperance, and he became unexpectedly intoxicated. Professor Haas then went to the bridge to pilot the ship. Unbeknownst to Professor Haas, his first mate, Paril, had spiked his drink with sleeping pills. An hour later, the ship struck an invisible iceberg below the waters surface, which caused the ship to run around and spill all of the oil. Professor Haas was found asleep at the wheel of the ship with three empty beer bottles laying on the floor beneath him. The oil washed ashore and damaged all of the boats owned by Gabrielle and Meccas Neat Wildlife Safari Company (GMNWSF), and they lost $10,000. An applicable law states: It is illegal to consume alcohol onboard oil tankers. Gabrielle and Mecca have sued GKRTOC and Professor Haas. Question 1. Will Gabrielle and Mecca be successful in a negligence claim against Professor Haas? Will Gabrielle and Mecca be successful in a negligence claim against GKRTOC? Will Gabrielle and Mecca be successful in a strict liability claim against GKRTOC? **** (the below facts only have to do with question 2. Do not discuss them on question 1) **** A few months later, the GKROTC is back in business. They have fired the lush Professor Haas and replaced him with Captain Carina. Captain Carina is also the GKROTC business manager. One day, she is playing tennis with with Paul, who runs a local oil refinery when he is not playing professional tennis, and is one of the GKRTOCs customers. Carina laughs at him and tells Paul that if he wins the next set, she will give him a years supply of oil for free (it would normally cost $50,000). Paul says, okay! They dont write anything down. Paul whoops Carina at tennis. Paul then laughs at her and says, Gee, I cant wait for all that free oil! Carina is confused and doesnt intend to actually give Paul any free oil. After tennis, Carina and Paul are having lunch. Paul feels bad for Carina, so he decides to sell her his brand new Mercedes for a real bargain. He writes on a napkin, I agree to sell my Mercedes to Carina for a price of $10, and signs it. He slides the napkin across the table and seriously says, Carina, Id like to sell you my Mercedes. Would you sign this contract? Carina is very happy, and signs the napkin. They leave the restaurant. On the way home, Paul discovers he actually likes his Mercedes quite a lot, and calls Carina. He tells her he doesnt want to sell her the Mercedes anymore, and wont give it to her. A month later, Carina still refuses to give Paul any oil, and Paul refuses to give Carina the Mercedes. They sue each other. Question 2. Is there a valid contract between Paul and Carina for a year supply of free oil? Is there a valid contract between Paul and Carina for the sale of Pauls Mercedes? Again, Please use the IRAC method when answering the questions. Thank you. Cases to refer to: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 NY 339 (1928) Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent, 230 . 239 (1921) Chevron ., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., 467 . 837 (1984)Show more
