Knarles and Barkley are father and son respectively. Barkley is seventeen years
ID: 2374092 • Letter: K
Question
Knarles and Barkley are father and son respectively. Barkley is seventeen years old. They operate a facilities maintenance company that regularly does business in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. The company is based in Maryland. They have a number of contracts with building owners where they have agreed to provide building maintenance to both residential and commercial buildings within the three jurisdictions already mentioned. They receive a monthly payment of $2,000 to $4,000 depending upon the size of the building. They bill the owners for any equipment of a substantial nature that has to be replaced. Because of Knarles' long-term relationships with building owners, these contracts that were once in writing are generally renewed without a new written agreement. Often Knarles and Barkley will replace outdated and broken equipment such as water heaters and boilers that are part of a building's heating system. Further, as part of maintenance they regularly wash windows, remove snow and do touch-up painting as required.
Explanation / Answer
Issue: Defamation
Rule: Under the common law, defamation requires a false statement of fact, of or concerning plaintiff, published to a third party, and causing damages. Also, where defamation is about a public person or matter of pubic concern, the plaintiff must prove that the statement is false, and that the defendant either knew of its truth or acted with reckless disregard of the truth (malice).
Analysis: Knarles%u2019 statements to his colleagues are arguably opinion, rather than facts. If so, then there is no defamation. If not, then Knarles%u2019 comments may be defamatory, because while they may be fair comment about an issue of public concern, Knarles has no proof of the truth of those statements, and as such, he acts with reckless disregard of the truth. Therefore, Knarles%u2019 is liable for defamation.
Rule: See definition, above.
Analysis: Stucko%u2019s statements are clearly factual. Assuming that they are made with knowledge of falisity or reckless disregard of the truth, then Stucko is liable for defamation. However, truth is an absolute defense to defamation %u2013 so, if Stucko%u2019s statements are true, then he is not liable for defamation.
Issue: Battery
Rule: Under the common law, Battery is an intentional harmful or offensive touching of another without consent or privilege.
Analysis: When Chetum tells the plumber to %u201Cfix it,%u201D in reference to the boiler, while simultaneously knowing that the boiler is defective and has been recalled, Chetum engages in an intentionally harmful touching of all of his residents. Therefore, Chetum is liable for battery.
Issue: Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
Rule: Under common law, the breach of quiet enjoyment occurs where a landlord acts or fails to act to secure the quiet enjoyment of a tenant in the tenancy.
Analysis: The residents have a right under their lease agreement to the quiet enjoyment of their tenancy. Chetum%u2019s failure to replace the boiler while knowing of its defects is a breach of covenant. Therefore, Chetum is liable for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment.
Issue: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith
Rule: Under common law, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith occurs where a contracting party acts to prevent another party from obtaining the benefit of the contractual bargain. The breach sounds in tort where the breaching party has a special duty.
Analysis: The residents have a contractual agreement, which under modern law, requires that the landlord provide adequate heating. Chetum%u2019s failure to do this, opting, instead for a repair of a dangerously defective boiler, prevents the residents from enjoying the benefit of the lease, and is thus a breach of the covenant of good faith.
Residents v. Housewarm
Issue: Strict Product Liability
Rule: In Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963), the California Supreme Court established the law of Strict Product Liability, which occurs where a plaintiff is injured by a product that is defective in design, manufacture or warning, where used in a reasonable foreseeable manner.
Analysis: Housewarm knows that the boiler is extremely dangerous, because it vents carbon monoxide, a known toxin which can cause death to a human exposed within an enclosed space, like an apartment. Housewarm has a responsibility to send out its own repair personnel, because nothing less can mitigate the inherent danger associated with a boiler that is affixed to real property. A product recall is insufficient, and Houswarm%u2019s defect in design, manufacture, and warning will make it strictly liable to Residents for all injuries proximate to the boiler.
Issue: Breach of Contract
Rule: Under common law, a contract is breached where the promise of an agreement is materially violated to the damage of another party.
Analysis: FC does not breach its express contract to Chetum, because the contract is voidable However, FC is liable to Chetum based upon an implied agency agreement %u2013 to be explained below.
Issue: Formation
Rule: Under common law, contract formation requires an offer (manifestation of present contractual intent, with definite and certain terms, communicated to the offeree), acceptance (unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer) and consideration (a legal detriment assumed in exchange for the benefit provided in the offer).
Analysis: Barkley demonstrated a present contractual intent when he sent a signed, written contract offer to Chetum, containing the definite and certain terms and conditions of service to be provided. Chetum signed, demonstrating unequivocal acceptance, and returned a check for the first month, as consideration. Therefore there is a contract.
Issue: Defense %u2013 Incapacity
Rule: Under common law, a minor may disaffirm/void a contract made during minority except for necessaries (food, shelter, clothing, health care).
Analysis: Barkley is only 17, therefore he cannot make a contract on behalf of his company, because the product is not a %u201Cnecessary%u201D intended for Barkley. The facts do not expressly state that Barkley disaffirmed the contract with Chetum, however, assuming that Barkley follows his father%u2019s intent to rescind/cancel the agreement, it is reasonable to believe that Barkley does disaffirm. Therefore the agreement with Chetum is unenforceable.
Issue: Actual Agency Contract
Rule: Under the common law of agency, an actual agency contract may be implied where the conduct of the parties indicates an intent to be bound to an agreement for one party to act on the other%u2019s behalf.
Analysis: When Plumber contacts Barkley and describes and advises concerning the boiler problems, and when Barkley relays that information to Chetum, and Chetum then instructs Plumber to fix the problem, Chetum and Plumber enter into an actual agency agreement by implication, and Plumber is bound to use his best efforts to resolve the boiler problem. Therefore, an actual agency agreement is formed.
Issue: Respondeat Superior
Rule: Under common law, an employer can be held liable for the acts or omissions of an employee done within the scope of employment.
Analysis: Plumber is FC%u2019s employee, and as such, if he enters into an agreement with Chetum within the scope of employment to repair the boiler, then FC is liable for Plumber%u2019s acts or omissions. Therefore, despite the invalidity of the express written contract, FC and Chetum are contractually bound concerning the boiler repair.
Issue: Professional Negligence
Rule: Under common law, professional negligence occurs where a person with an agency duty to a principal, breaches that duty and is the actual and proximate cause of the principal%u2019s injuries.
Analysis: Plumber, despite having an expired license, is a professional with a duty to his clients. As previously described, Plumber has entered into an agency agreement to repair the boiler for Chetum. Plumber%u2019s failure to either replace the boiler, fix the boiler so that it does not vent carbon monoxide, or refuse to complete the contract and withdraw from the agreement, violates Plumber%u2019s duty of fiduciary and loyalty to act in the highest and best financial interests of his principal. Therefore, Plumber is liable for professional negligence to Chetum.
Issue: Respondeat Superior
Rule: Defined above.
Analysis: Once again, because Plumber entered into the agreement while acting as an employee of FC, therefore FC is liable to Chetum for professional negligence.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.