Mr. Smith Awakens One Morning To The Sound Of Construction

Mr Smith Awakens One Morning To The Sound Of Construction In H

Mr. Smith awakens one morning to the sound of construction in his backyard. When he looks out the window, he sees Ajax Construction Co. apparently erecting a garage on his property. He had not spoken or contracted with Ajax for this service. However, Mr. Smith really wanted a new garage, so he let them continue. Later, it was discovered that the garage was intended to go next door. Ajax sues Mr. Smith for the value of the garage. What is the probable result?

Issue: Can Ajax recover from Mr. Smith for the cost of the garage?

Rule: Ajax can recover if there is a contract or if one of the elements of an enforceable contract is missing, if there is an alternate theory such as implied in law (quasi contract) or implied in fact contract.

Analysis: To be an enforceable contract, there must be mutual assent, consideration, capacity, and legality. In this case, mutual assent is clearly missing because Mr. Smith did not agree to the construction. However, under the implied in fact contract theory, recovery might be possible if three elements are met: (1) the plaintiff provided services expecting payment; (2) the defendant had an opportunity to reject the services; and (3) it would be unjust for the defendant to retain the services without paying. Here, Ajax reasonably believed Mr. Smith consented and had the opportunity to reject; Mr. Smith's conduct indicates acceptance. The garage was built on Mr. Smith’s property, and he permitted it to remain, which suggests he benefited from the construction without paying, satisfying the elements for an implied in fact contract.

Conclusion: Although there was no mutual agreement, Ajax may recover the value of the garage under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, as it would be unjust for Mr. Smith to retain the benefit of a garage he did not contract for but allowed to be built on his property.

Harry and the Deck Contract Dispute

Harry informs Handy about building a deck and discussing costs based on an hourly rate, with Harry's limit of 80 hours. Handy begins construction, and Harry later notices the support posts are not in concrete, which he considers essential. Handy offers to redo the work for an additional 20 hours. The final bill is $900: $750 for 75 hours of initial work and $150 for redoing part of the job. Harry disputes paying the additional $150. The core issue is whether there was a valid enforceable contract and the scope of that contract regarding the concrete footings.

Issue: Is there an enforceable contract for building the deck, and does it include concrete footings?

Rule: An enforceable contract requires offer, acceptance, mutuality, consideration, and clear terms. If a material term is omitted or misunderstood, the contract may be void. Disputes over contract scope may involve interpretations based on industry standards, practices, and the parties' conduct.

Analysis: Here, Harry and Handy agreed on building a deck with certain specifications, but their understanding of what constitutes acceptable footing differs. Harry expects concrete support posts; Handy intended to use wood footings, believing that was sufficient. If industry standards commonly require concrete footings, then the scope was implied or explicitly included, forming a contractual term. If, however, the industry practice is mixed or ambiguous, the court will examine testimony on customary practices. Since the additional work related specifically to the concrete footing correction, and if such work is generally considered part of standard deck construction, the court would likely find that the scope of the original contract included concrete posts. In that case, Harry would be obligated to pay for the extra 20 hours of work. Conversely, if concrete footings are not standard, then Handy's claim for extra compensation may fail.

Conclusion: The court will analyze industry standards and the parties’ conduct. If concrete footings are customary, Harry must pay the extra $150; otherwise, he may be justified in withholding that payment.

Offer and Advertisement in the Sale of the Dodge Viper

Sam advertises his 1999 Dodge Viper in the newspaper, stating, "First $45,000 cash takes it." Betty views the ad and offers $42,000. Sam rejects this, claiming no deal. Betty later offers $45,000 in person, and Sam refuses to sell, citing that Betty rejected the offer. The question is whether Sam is obligated to sell to Betty for $45,000.

Issue: Is Sam obligated to sell his Dodge Viper to Betty for $45,000?

Rule: An advertisement is generally considered an invitation to negotiate or an invitation to make an offer, not an offer itself unless it is sufficiently specific and intended as a binding offer.

Analysis: Sam's ad is specific about the vehicle and price, which can sometimes constitute a unilateral offer. Betty counteroffers $42,000, effectively rejecting the original offer. When she later offers $45,000, she is proposing an acceptance after rejection, which would restart negotiations. Since ads are typically invitations to bid, unless the language indicates an intent to be bound, they do not create enforceable contracts. However, because Sam's ad is explicit with terms, it may be deemed a unilateral offer that becomes binding upon Betty's performance of presenting cash. Her initial counteroffer at $42,000 is a rejection, ending the original offer. Her subsequent offer of $45,000 could be interpreted as a new offer, which Sam can accept or reject. Since Sam refused to sell at $45,000, there is no enforceable contract.

Conclusion: Based on the general rule and the facts, Sam is not obligated to sell the Viper for $45,000 because Betty's prior counteroffer terminated the initial offer, and her later acceptance was not effective. The lack of mutual agreement prevents formation of a binding contract.

Liability for Injury Caused by Skiing with Skis

Sam nearly hits pedestrians with his skis while walking, and when distracted, he turns suddenly, causing a ski to hit Pam in the head, injuring her. The question is whether Sam is liable for negligence or intentional tort toward Pam.

Issue: Does Pam have a claim against Sam for negligence or battery?

Rule: To establish negligence, Pam must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. Reckless behavior that creates an immediate risk may also give rise to an intentional tort such as battery if harm is intentionally caused or the conduct is so reckless that it demonstrates an intent to cause harm.

Analysis: Sam owed a duty to behave reasonably while carrying skis in public. His actions of nearly hitting pedestrians and then turning suddenly, resulting in the ski hitting Pam, constitute a breach of duty. The harm was caused by his conduct, satisfying causation. If his behavior was merely negligent, and it was unintentional, then negligence applies. If his behavior was so reckless that he knew or should have known it would cause harm, then a battery claim might also be viable. Since no evidence suggests Sam intended to hurt Pam, negligence is the primary claim. However, if the court finds his behavior grossly reckless, it may rule that the conduct was equivalent to intent, supporting an intentional battery claim.

Potential Defenses: Assumption of risk or contributory negligence. Pam observed unsafe conduct over several hundred yards, arguably assuming some risk or contributing to her injury by standing too close.

Conclusion: Sam is likely liable under negligence for failing to behave reasonably. A reckless or grossly negligent action could support a battery claim. The defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence could mitigate or bar recovery.

Paul’s Injury from Mary’s Throwing and Slipping

Mary, owner of a distribution business, throws a printout at Paul, hitting him in the back and causing him to slip and injure his leg. The question is whether Mary is liable for his injuries.

Issue: Is Mary liable for the injuries to Paul caused by her throwing the printout and his subsequent slip?

Rule: To establish liability, Mary’s conduct must constitute negligence or an intentional tort. Throwing an object that strikes someone can be negligence or battery if done intentionally. Slip and fall injuries may also involve premises liability or negligence if conduct created a dangerous condition.

Analysis: Mary intentionally threw the printout at Paul, which led to his injury, satisfying the element of intent for battery or negligence. In addition, throwing objects in a workplace could be negligent if it creates an unreasonable risk of harm. The fact that the printout hit Paul so as to cause injury could support a battery claim. Regarding the slip, Mary’s conduct of throwing the printout indirectly caused the fall—probably a foreseeable consequence. Given that her conduct directly resulted in the injury, Mary may be liable for both the battery and the in-the-course injury from slipping. The employer's conduct or premises conditions are less relevant here because the injury resulted directly from Mary’s intentional act.

Conclusion: Mary is liable for battery for intentionally throwing the printout at Paul, and possibly for negligence contributing to his slip and injury.

Paper For Above instruction

The legal principles surrounding accidental constructions, contractual negotiations, and tort liabilities highlight the complexity of establishing enforceability, liability, and contractual obligations. In the case of Mr. Smith and the unauthorized garage construction by Ajax Construction Co., the key issue is whether Ajax can recover under a theory of implied in fact contract or unjust enrichment. Despite the absence of mutual assent, courts may find that, given Ajax’s substantial performance and Mr. Smith’s benefit, recovery is appropriate to prevent unjust enrichment. This scenario emphasizes the importance of consent and the boundaries of implied agreements in property improvements.

Similarly, disputes over contractual scope, as seen in the Harry and Handy deck construction case, revolve around what constitutes a material term and industry standards. If concrete footings are customary in deck-building, the court might find that Handy was entitled to additional compensation for redoing the support posts. The clarity of the parties’ understanding and the practice in the industry act as critical factors in evaluating whether extra work falls within or outside the scope of initial agreement. These contractual nuances underpin the importance of clear communication and explicit contractual terms to mitigate disputes.

The sale of the Dodge Viper by Sam exemplifies how advertisements are generally invitations rather than offers, with the exception of highly specific language that indicates an intent to be bound. Betty’s rejection of an initial lower offer, followed by her attempt to accept the original offer at a later date, illustrates the importance of mutual assent and counteroffer termination. Courts typically hold that unless an advertisement is deemed a unilateral or binding offer, no contractual obligation exists, highlighting the importance of precise language in sale advertisements.

In the realm of tort law, liability is grounded in the duty to behave reasonably and avoid causing harm. Sam’s conduct of nearly hitting pedestrians and then swinging skis wildly demonstrates breach of duty and causation, potentially leading to negligence. If his behavior is grossly reckless, the conduct might also support a battery claim, although intent is typically a requirement for battery. Defenses such as assumption of risk—especially given the public nature of skiing—and contributory negligence—Pam’s awareness of danger—can reduce or eliminate liability, illustrating the balancing of responsibilities in personal injury cases.

Mary’s act of throwing a printout at Paul introduces intentional tort liability. Her conduct was deliberate and directly caused injury and the injury from slipping, making her liable for battery and negligence. These cases underscore how intentional acts linking harm to conduct create liability, emphasizing the importance of cautious behavior in workplaces and public spaces.

Overall, these scenarios demonstrate how contract formation relies on clear offer and acceptance, industry standards, and equitable principles, while tort liability hinges on duty, breach, causation, and harm. Each case underlines the nuanced application of common law principles to establish rights and responsibilities in differing contexts.

References

• Farnsworth, E. A. (2020). Contracts (7th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
• Dobbs, D. B., Hayden, P. T., & Bublick, E. M. (2017). The Law of Torts (2nd ed.). West Academic Publishing.
• Perillo, J. M. (2018). Corbin on Contracts (5th ed.). West Publishing.
• Prosser, W. L., Wade, J. B., & Schwartz, V. E. (2018). The Law of Torts (11th ed.). Thompson Reuters.
• Restatement (Second) of Contracts. (1981). American Law Institute.
• Restatement (Second) of Torts. (1979). American Law Institute.
• Calamari, J. D., & Perillo, J. M. (2018). The Law of Contracts (6th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
• Golden, M., & Berman, B. (2021). Employment Law (9th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
• Friedman, L. M. (2018). Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (4th ed.). Foundation Press.
• American Bar Association. (2020). Model Rules of Professional Conduct. ABA Publishing.