GM520ONO Legal, Political and Ethical Dimensions. Week 5 Midterm.

1. TCO B. Infuriated when Harry Reid is re-elected during the 2010 fall election, the Republican National Committee decides to take matters into its own hands. In 2011, the House of Representatives passes a new "Freedom isn't Free Act" that requires that anyone who wants to vote in the 2012 presidential election must prove that they paid at least $200 in federal income tax in the past year, including people aged 18 (who typically are deducted on their parents' returns and do not pay income tax). Anyone who received the "earned income credit" is barred from voting unless they return the payment from the government. Proof of payment of the tax can be made by showing a copy …show more content…

(25 points) What potential legal theories of recovery can and should Melissa allege against the following parties (provide support for your answer)?

I. The boat manufacturer
II. The boat seller
III. The coast guard

(15 points) What legal theories of defense can and should each of the above three parties use? Provide support for your answer. (Points : 40)

Melissa can use several theories against the offending parties, and can use the "Wrongful Death" claim. First, and foremost, she can use the Acceptance clause. It is a crucial step in contract generation, where the terms of the contract are presented, and if both parties are not clearly in agreement as to the terms, the contract can become void, or unenforceable. What Melissa can argue is that because the safety manual was not in view (I'm assuming that she did not see or read the manual), that she can claim that because there was no acceptance, she was unaware of the slippery surfaces, and can thus claim that there never was a contract established, but that the product was harmful to her husband, and therefore she is liable to collect. This is also the defense she can use towards the boat seller, that he did not offer an explanation of the contract, and therefore withheld information pertaining to the boat, and therefore there was a 'void contract' -- she can claim a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. She can effectively argue "Misrepresentation"