Can someone help me answer 2 and 3 pleaseeee ?? Thanks E. Damages, breach, causa

Question

Can someone help me answer 2 and 3 pleaseeee ?? Thanks

E. Damages, breach, causation, and duty. Al and Bob are regular bar patrons at Charles' Bar & Grill. While they are watching a football game between the San Jose Miners and the Los Angeles Sun Surfers, Al makes a disparaging remark about the star quarterback of the San Jose Miners. Bob takes offense to the comments. He grabs one of the seven empty beer bottles that he had lined up in front of him on the bar counter and hurls it at Al. Al ducks and the beer bottle strikes Danica in the face, causing a gash above her eye. Does Danica have a claim against Bob? 2. A. No, because Bob did not intent to hit Danica. B. Yes, for assault under the transfer intent doctrine. C. Yes, for battery under intentional tort. D. Yes, for battery under transfer intent principle. E. Yes, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bob contracts with Henry to build two houses in exchange for Henry's payment of $200,000.00 for each house. 3. The houses are to be built over a period of three years. Bob a written contract. After Bob completes one house, Henry tells Bob that he will not pay for the house. A. Under what theory can Bob sue Henry? B. Has Bob satisfied all the elements to recovery under the theory? was two years old. For his birthday, Paul receives a brand new high-end Prodigy Fear- hased the snowboard on Amazonia.com. The 4. Paul is a twelve-year-old experienced snowboarder. He has been snowboarding since he

Explanation / Answer

2. Yes , for assualt under the transfer intent doctrine. Because according to legal act , when someone try to harm other person but by mistake he can harm third person who is not involve in their fight but accidently become victim then in this case victim person can claim under the law "the transfer intent doctrine"

3. a). Bob and henry comes under the oral contract which is not acceptable by law. Because law believes on tangible things i.e whic is present so if their is the breach on contract so to take a lawful action its is neccesary to one have written contract and signed by both party. But in this case written contract is not present so on base of oral contract bob can sue Henry only when he proves his innocence and other party accept their guilt . But if it is also not possible so there are many investigation team which investigate and find that a person who sue other person speak truth or not and their charges is genuine or not.

B).No, Bob did not satisfy all the elements to recovery under this theory because he has not any written and valid contract in which both party sign is involved but he try to proof himself innocence and gives some clues to the investigation team to regarding their claim.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse C
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.