Essay Writing Workshop

ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOPMike Sims, Esq. FOUR THINGS THE ESSAYS ARE TESTING 1. Can you figure out your client’s problem, or _________________________________ 2. Can you figure out what rule is relevant to the problem, or ______________________ 3. Can you _____________________________________________________ to your rule, and 4. Can you ____________________________________. THREE THINGS EVERY ANSWER MUST DO 1. _______________________________________________________________. 2. _______________________________________________________________. 3. _______________________________________________________________. Three words that will help you do that 1. _______________________________________________________________. 2. _______________________________________________________________. 3. _______________________________________________________________. THREE STEPS TO MAXIMIZING YOUR ESSAY SCORE 1. _______________________________________________________________. 2. _______________________________________________________________. 3. _______________________________________________________________. Copyright © 2017 by BARBRI, Inc. . ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP Question 1 Biddle. Biddle refused to issue a firm check for any of the items ordered by Cooper on the ground that none of the purchases had been authorized by the partnership. Biddle was designated as Treasurer and was responsible for paying all of the firm’s bills. Biddle had previously told Victor Vendor that each purchase order for Best Builders in an amount over $1.000 must be authorized in writing by at least two of the partners.2. Upon receipt of the invoices from Victor Vendor. (2) $2.000 worth of siding materials and (3) a $900 ladies’ watch from Victor Vendor who was the operator of a jewelry store and hardware-building supply business. Unknown to Biddle and Dogwood. Cooper placed three separate orders on different dates for the following purchases in the firm’s name with delivery to be made upon payment of the seller’s invoice submitted to Best Builders: (1) a $500 electric saw. Cooper. What liability does the partnership have to Victor Vendor with respect each of the purchases? Give reasons. and Dogwood were equal partners in a home construction business known as Best Builders.000 must be signed by at least two of the partners. The written partnership agreement provided that each firm purchase in excess of $1. Herman proceeded immediately to the bolt aisle and began looking at bolts. Explain what defenses. placed it in his pocket. The ability of a partner to bind his partnership when dealing with third parties is governed by the law of agency. and walked quickly toward the exit. and the person with whom to partner was dealing knew or had received notification that the partner lacked authority. A week later. Pat raced after Herman and without saying a word to Herman. and he lacked apparent authority because it would be unreasonable to rely on his partnership position for authority since the watch is obviously outside the scope of the partnership needs. he had actual authority to purchase the $500 saw. kept overnight. When the lawnmower began vibrating uncontrollably. Pat. Cooper lacked both actual and apparent authority to buy the watchChis actual authority extended only to items to be used by the partnership. Herman sued Pat. he could not reasonably rely on Cooper’s position as a partner to create apparent authority. one of the store security guards. and drove to “Just Bolts.000. and released the next morning.” Upon arrival at Just Bolts. . Here Cooper had actual authority to make purchases for partnership purposes for up to $1. Question 2 Herman Handyman was mowing his lawn one Saturday morning. because Vendor knew of the two-signature requirement. Further. apparent authority does not exist if the partner had no authority to act for the partnership in the particular matter. Herman was rushed to the hospital. Pat saw Herman place the bolt into his pocket and believed Herman was stealing the bolt. Pat threw him to the floor. if any. Actual authority is the authority a partner reasonably believes he has based upon the partnership agreement or communications between the partners. Apparent authority exists when a partner acts in the ordinary course of the partnership business or in the kind of business carried out by the partnership. alleging that he had been battered by the security guard. Herman glanced down at the mower and noticed that one of the four bolts attaching the engine to the mower chassis was missing.000. However. Answer 1 The partnership will be bound to pay for the saw but will not be bound to pay for the siding or the watch. Herman became frustrated. Thus. placed the used bolt in his pocket. became suspicious of Herman because of the amount of time Herman spent in the bolt aisle. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP 3. Pat could raise to Herman’s allegation and the probability of the success of those defenses. Herman unscrewed one of the remaining bolts. as the purchase was for over $1. Similarly. An agent can bind his principal only if he as actual or apparent authority to act. As a result of the fall. Cooper lacked actual authority to purchase the siding. After spending approximately thirty minutes comparing the used bolt with the new bolts looking for the right bolt. CONCLUSION Defined: ________________________________________________________________. _______________________________________________________________. 3. _______________________________________________________________. 5. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP Outlines COMPONENTS OF A WINNING ANSWER 1.4. _______________________________________________________________. _______________________________________________________________. How do you do it: _________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________. 2. _______________________________________________________________. Your conclusion to Herman Handyman: _________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ . 4. the two most relevant defenses that he could raise are recapture of chattels and shopkeepers’ privilege. [Application of law to facts] Here. but neither defense will work here. Indeed. [Rule] A person commits battery when he causes a harmful or offensive touching of the plaintiff’s person with an intent to do so. Pat did not use reasonable force. Similarly. [Conclusion] Herman can make out a prima facie case for battery against Pat. so Pat’s use of force was unreasonable. including harmful or offensive contact. [Application of law to facts] Here. It is quite unreasonable to approach a shoplifting suspect and throw him to the ground without asking him for an explanation of his actions. he did tackle Herman. Thus. Herman was not given a chance to explain before he was thrown to the ground. [Issue] At issue is whether Pat used reasonable force to detain Herman. a prima facie case for battery is present. Answer 2 Conclusory Answer: Pat has no viable defenses because he committed a battery against Herman and neither the defense for recapture of chattels nor the shopkeepers’ privilege will be available since Pat used unreasonable force in detaining Herman. [Conclusion] Pat does not have any viable defenses against the battery action. Pat has no viable defense against Herman’s action. Good Answer: [Conclusion] Pat could raise two defenses against Herman’s allegations: recapture of chattels and shopkeepers’ privilege. under either defense he could have used reasonable force to detain Herman. [Restatement of conclusion] Here. such as through theft. [Rule] Since Pat was trying to prevent what he thought was a theft. However. it is clear that Pat intended to tackle Herman. . However. to recapture chattels when in hot pursuit of one who has obtained the chattels wrongfully. these defenses will fail. unless the person refused to be detained. Therefore. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP 5. and the tackling harmed Herman to such an extent that he had to spend the night in the hospital. it would be unreasonable to throw a person to the ground even if he admitted to shoplifting. Herman. A person may use reasonable force. Therefore. spent an unreasonably long time in the bolt aisle and Pat saw Herman put a bolt in his pocket. No other defense is apparent on these facts. Pat had reasonable grounds to believe that Herman had stolen something. a shopkeeper and his employees are privileged to use reasonable force to detain a person whom they reasonably believe has stolen the shopkeeper’s merchandise. By December 2014. Paula was employed throughout their marriage as a credit manager for a department store and she supported the family for the most part. Rich decided he wanted a divorce. She is being sued by several stores for Rich’s charged purchases. so Paula moved in with her mother. although he never had a steady job or any cash. Paula found out about Rich’s girlfriend and told him to vacate their residence. Rich was an investor in real estate. As he had in the past. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP ISSUE Defined: An issue statement should be a short_________________________________________ statement that shows the examiner that you know exactly what you need to talk about to arrive at the right conclusion. She also asks you to get her out of the separation agreement she signed with Rich. Important Point: _______________________________________________________________! Question 3 Rich and Paula were married in 2007. Rich charged his clothes. . Explain your answers. In the fall of 2014. she refused to pay. Rich refused to move. When Paula got the bills. most of them without Paula’s knowledge. Paula asks you for legal advice.6. but did not cancel the accounts. Rich talked Paula into signing it at his lawyer’s office without getting a lawyer of her own. He told Paula that money from properties she did know about was being “invested. The separation agreement contained a disclosure only of the property that Rich thought Paula knew about. and 2) the validity of the separation agreement. Advise Paula as to: 1) the likely outcome of the lawsuits by the stores. Rich bought and sold properties in his own name.” when he really spent it gambling and buying presents for his girlfriend. food and anything else he needed and had the bills sent to Paula at her mother’s. and Paula agreed to sign a separation agreement. Throughout their marriage. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP 7. GOOD: At issue_____________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Issue 2) TYPICAL: At issue is whether the separation agreement is valid. Issue 1) TYPICAL: At issue is whether the stores will win their lawsuits against Paula. _____________________________________________________________________ . _____________________________________________________________________ 2. _____________________________________________________________________ 3. _____________________________________________________________________ 4. GOOD: At issue is___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ RULE OF LAW: Defined: A full statement of the applicable governing principles How do you do it? ____________________________________________________________ Organizing points on rules: 1. so that they could travel faster. Hargrove and Lewis removed their backpacks. “One move and you’re history. hail the size of cantaloupes began to batter the poor hikers. Vaughan. The next morning. The hut was well-supplied with canned goods.” Lewis took one step toward Vaughan. As dawn came. Incredibly. Hargrove and Lewis studied their map to determine the way to town. the owner of the cabin. Hargrove returned to the pantry and filled his pockets with boxes of dates and a dozen granola bars. a fierce thunderstorm suddenly arose. dawn came bright and clear. With a rock. and Hargrove and Lewis each ate two cans of hash they found in the pantry. Vaughan fired two shots and nailed Lewis in the leg. _____________________________________________________________________ 3. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP What happens if you don’t know a rule? _____________________________________________ 1. . Flashes of lightning filled the sky and a savage downpour began. they stumbled upon a small stone and wood hut that appeared to be unoccupied. which held all their food and spare clothing. While Hargrove was inside. Vaughan jumped from his car with a rifle and said to Lewis. they stumbled over the mountainous terrain in search of help or at least cover. For the entire day. drove up and saw Lewis standing near the door of the hut.8. _____________________________________________________________________ APPLICATION OF FACTS TO LAW Defined: ______________________________________________________________________ How do you do it? ______________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Question 4 Hargrove and Lewis were on a backpacking tour through the Black Mountains in early autumn. _____________________________________________________________________ 2. they smashed in the front door and entered the hut. dropping him. Shortly after noon. Vaughan reloaded and moved toward Lewis. Hargrove pulled out his hunting knife and flung it at Vaughan. [Rule] It is a defense to criminal charges that the person engaged in criminal conduct as a result of pressure from natural forces and that the person reasonably believed that the conduct was necessary to avoid a greater harm. moaning. After investigating the events. Hargrove’s knife hit Vaughan in the forearm and Vaughan dropped the rifle. Assume the elements of each crime are properly set out in the indictments. state the affirmative defenses. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP 9. He looked up and saw Vaughan with the rifle raised to his shoulder. if any. Hargrove came out of the hut and discovered Lewis on the ground. Answer 4 Lewis [Conclusion] Lewis may raise the defense of necessity against the charges of criminal trespass and theft of the hash. The following indictments were lawfully returned against the following people: Lewis: Criminal trespass Theft of the hash Hargrove: Theft of the dates and granola bars Felonious assault on Vaughan Vaughan: Attempted murder of Lewis For each named defendant. each has to the criminal charges lodged against him. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ . the state authorities presented the facts to a grand jury. aimed at Lewis. it appears that the oppressive natural force was gone and the defense will fail.g. It is doubtful that these additional elements would be required here. [Conclusion] Hargrove will almost certainly be successful in asserting the defense of defense of others as to the assault charge. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ . [Conclusion] Thus. familial) between the person defended and the defender. and defense of others in defense of the assault charge. Some courts require more – that the person defended must have had an actual right to use the force. [Application to Rule previously stated] The problem with the necessity defense for Hargrove’s theft is that he took food after the storm had ended and after he and Lewis had plotted their course to town.. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP Hargrove [Conclusion] Hargrove can assert necessity in defense of the food he took. Some courts also require a special relationship (e.10. [Rule] A defendant may successfully assert the defense of defense of others if it was reasonable to believe that the person defended had a right to use the force that the defendant used. [Application] Given the fact that Vaughan hit Lewis in the leg and did not fire a second shot to finish him off. Vaughan [Conclusion] Vaughan cannot successfully assert any affirmative defense against the charge of attempted murder. . [Rule] To prove attempted murder. it might be inferred that Vaughan intended only to incapacitate Lewis. [Rule] The defense of self-defense is available when the defendant was without fault. was confronted with unlawful force. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ [Addressing all LSF’s] It should be noted that Vaughan still might not be found guilty of attempted murder because it is doubtful that the state can show a necessary element. and was threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP 11. the state must prove that Vaughan fired at Lewis with the actual intent to kill him. but the motorist’s damages will be reduced because of his violation of the headlight statute.p. (D) No. because the motorist’s violation of the headlight statute constitutes negligence per se. and the motorist’s damages will not be reduced despite his violation of the headlight statute. because the motorist has not established that driving 20 m. because the other driver violated the speeding statute. because the other driver violated the speeding statute.12.h. The jurisdiction makes it a misdemeanor to drive a vehicle that does not have operating headlights. over the speed limit created an unreasonable risk of injury to others. will he prevail? (A) Yes. (C) No. over the speed limit posted on that stretch of road. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP ADDRESSING ALL LEGALLY SIGNIFCANT FACTS – ADVANCED SPS Outcome: ____________________________________________________________________ Analysis: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ A motorist was driving to a luncheon in a car that he knew did not have operating headlights.p. (B) Yes. On the way there he was rear-ended by another driver who had been driving 20 m. He suffered personal injuries and his car was extensively damaged.h. . If the motorist brings an action against the other driver and the above facts are established. Is the partnership bound by the contract that Carl signed? Explain.000 for all of Jane’s 127 machines. which are located in many of the same bars and restaurants served by the partnership. At no time. Barbara. Actual authority is the authority a partner reasonably believes he has based upon the partnership agreement or communications between the partners. Jane owns one of these bars. However. After they visited 50 bars and saw 98 machines. To capitalize on this trend. However. did Carl consult with Adam or Barbara before finalizing the deal. In past dealings with the partnership. and Carl decided that their partnership should consider expanding into the pinball and video game machine business. . The partners agreed that Carl would approach Jane to obtain information about the number of machines she had for sale. Carl decided he had seen enough. because the opportunity represented a new line of business. Carl signed the contract on behalf of the partnership. A number of beverage distribution businesses have expanded into the pinball and video game machine business. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP 13. however. Adam. Based on Jane’s representations and his observations of 98 machines. and Carl are partners in a beverage distribution business. apparent authority does not exist if the partner had no authority to act for the partnership in the particular matter. Carl decided to offer $225. At about the same time. She also owns a number of pinball and video game machines. and the associated revenues and expenses. PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER Question 5: Adam. Adam and Barbara instructed Carl not to finalize a deal with Jane without first discussing the terms with them. their locations and condition. Barbara. When Carl met with Jane. Jane has dealt exclusively with Carl. Carl told Jane he would go back to the office to “run some numbers” and would call her soon. Jane decided to sell her pinball and video game machines. she said that she owned 127 machines located in 72 bars and restaurants. and the person with whom to partner was dealing knew or had received notification that the partner lacked authority. Helpful Rules: 1. Jane accepted the offer and signed the contract Carl had drafted. Apparent authority exists when a partner acts in the ordinary course of the partnership business or in the kind of business carried out by the partnership. The partnership distributes alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages to bars and restaurants throughout State A. 2. . Actual authority is authority that a partner reasonably believes he has based upon the partnership agreement or communications between the partners. and the person with whom to partner was dealing knew or had received notification that the partner lacked authority. Jane could reasonably believe that the partnership was expanding its business and Carl had the authority to purchase the machines. Notwithstanding that communication. Apparent authority exists when a partner acts in the ordinary course of the partnership business or in the kind of business carried out by the partnership. an argument can be made that the purchase was apparently for carrying on that type of business. Jane had no reason to know Carl lacked authority to act for the partnership. Adam and Barbara specifically instructed Carl not to finalize a deal with Jane without first discussing the terms with them. the partnership will be bound if Carl’s purchase of the machines was an act for apparently carrying on partnership business or business of the kind carried out by the partnership. However. However. Here. the partnership may be bound by the contract Carl signed with Jane. Carl lacked actual authority to enter into the contract with Jane. Thus. The purchase of the pinball and video game machines generally would not seem to be an act for carrying on a beverage distribution business. However. apparent authority does not exist if the partner had no authority to act for the partnership in the particular matter. In the past Jane had dealt exclusively with Carl in his capacity as a partner of the beverage distribution business. Therefore. Here. the partnership business was beverage distribution. The facts indicate that a number of beverage distribution businesses in the area had expanded into the pinball and video game machine business.14. the partnership may be bound on the contract if Carl had apparent authority. and Jane was aware of this fact. Carl signed a contract on behalf of the partnership to purchase Jane’s pinball and video game machines without consulting with Adam or Barbara. Thus. At issue is whether Carl had actual or apparent authority to enter into the contract. Here. Thus. ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP Answer 5: The partnership may be bound by the contract that Carl signed.