A persоn begins tо leаve her drivewаy аnd оbserves a pedestrian approaching on the sidewalk. The operator should? (L.O. 22.19)
QUESTION 3 – 10 POINTS Sаlly Hоlmes, а student аt Stanfоrd University, has been wоrking on developing a watch that measures the blood sugar of the wearer of the watch. She believes she is getting close to having a working prototype of the watch which she calls the “GlucoWatch.” Holmes has formed a company called GlucoWatch, Inc. and hopes to sell shares in the company to investors. Holmes has no special training but believed she could develop a workable blood sugar reading watch. On June 1, 2023, one of Holmes engineers reported that he believed the watch was showing promise and “would probably measure blood sugar with 99% accuracy, but the engineer told Holmes that she should send the watch to an independent lab for further analysis. Holmes immediately sent the prototype of the watch to ABC Labs to run tests on the watches ability to accurately read blood sugar levels. On July 1, 2023, before Holmes received any reports from ABC Labs, Holmes approached Kelly Harris about investing in GlucoWatch, Inc. Holmes presented Kelly with an “Investor Memoranda” which included information on the watch. The Investor Memoranda stated that the watch would read blood sugar with 99% accuracy and that the watch was undergoing “intense scrutiny” by an independent lab and that testing by the lab “proved the accuracy of the watch.” Kelly reviewed the materials and decided to purchase 2,000 shares of GlucoWatch, Inc. for a total investment of $900,000. Kelly was particularly excited about the positive findings results of the lab, which sale of company shares was scheduled to occur on August 15, 2023. On August 1, 2023, Sally Holmes received the results from the lab. The report stated that the lab could “not confirm any discernable accurate blood sugar readings from the watch” and that the watch failed to measure blood sugar with any level of accuracy. Sally Holmes did not share this report with anyone. On August 15, 2023, Holmes and Kelly closed the transaction on Kelly’s purchase of 2,000 shares. Four months after purchasing 2,000 shares Kelly learned of the actual lab report result of the watch. Kelly is furious and has demanded that Sally Holmes return the $900,000 she paid for her 2,000 shares. Sally Holmes has refused. Kelly has sued Holmes for fraud. REQUIRED (10 Points): Will Kelly prevail? In separately lettered or numbered paragraphs, discuss each of the elements of Kelly’s fraudulent misrepresentation lawsuit. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS QUESTION, IGNORE THE POSSIBLE APPLICATION OF THE ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE AND IGNORE ANY CLAIM FOR NONFRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION.
QUESTION 2 – 6 POINTS Annie is the оwner оf Gоod Bike Compаny, а stаte-wide retailer of new and used bicycles and accessories. Good Bike Company is looking to stock its inventory of bikes. Annie, on behalf of Good Bike Company, called a sales representative at BMC Bicycles, a national manufacturer of bikes. Annie had a long conversation with Sang, the sales representative at BMC. Annie and Sang (on behalf of BMC) agreed to the purchase of 25 BMC bikes a price equal to the manufacturer’s listed price less a 15% discount for purchasing more than 20 bikes. After the call, Annie filled out a purchase order reflecting the conversation. The purchase order identified the purchase by Good Bike Company of 25 BMC Bikes at a total price of $31,000 (which was the price agreed to with Sang). Annie signed the purchase order on behalf of Good Bike Company and sent it to BMC, which received the purchase order on November 1. On December 1, Annie had not heard anything from BMC and had not yet received the bikes. Annie reached out to BMC and was told that BMC would not go through with the sale because they were upset that Sang agreed to such a large order at such a low price. BMC said to Annie during that conversation: “Anyway, we did not sign anything regarding this sale so there is no contract between us.” REQUIRED (6 Points): Is BMC correct in asserting the statute of frauds as a defense because it did not sign anything in writing? Explain your answer.
QUESTION 4 – 5 Pоints Jаne rents а luxury аpartment frоm Edwards. The written and signed lease prоvides for a 5 year lease term. Jane is required to pay Edwards rent of $9,500 per month. At the time, Jane could afford the rent because she had a high paying job as a patent attorney. After three years of renting the apartment, Jane lost her job. Jane could no longer afford to pay $9,500 per month and approached Edwards about modifying the lease. Jane told Edwards that she could probably afford rent in the amount of $6,000 per month because of her savings. Edwards could not afford to lose another tenant in his building. Edwards told Jane that she would agree to the decreased monthly rent payments if Jane agreed to extend his lease by another year – so that the total lease term would now be 6 years instead of five. Jane agreed. Edwards’s lawyer prepared a simple one-page amendment to the lease which provided that the monthly rent would decrease to $6,000 per month and that Jane would agree to extend her lease term by one year, for a total lease term of six years. Both Edwards and Jane signed the amendment. Jane began paying $6,000 per month. After several months Don approached Edwards and indicated that he really wants Jane’s apartment and is willing to pay more than $9,500 a month in rent. Edwards now wants out of the lease and lease amendment he entered into with Jane so that he can rent to Don at the higher rent. Edwards sent Jane a letter telling her that the amendment was unenforceable because it lacked consideration. Jane does not want to leave the apartment. REQUIRED (5 Points): Is Edwards correct that the lease amendment is unenforceable for lack of consideration? Who wins? Discuss.