Essay on Legal Dilemmas Unraveled: Fraud, Contracts, and Land Ownership Challenges in Real Estate

Question One

Tim Vs. Maria

Tim may sue Maria for the exposure of his trade secret. Before Maria copied Tim's device, Team had maintained his trade secret, and he was a highly sought detective in the area. After Maria released the "Detective Ear" (Tim's copied devise) in the market, Tim's business failed. Tim had been using his unique modified device to operate his business, and his secret had given him a competitive advantage over other detectives in the area.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Tim may sue Maria under The Natural Right Theory or the Labor theory by Locke. The approach puts forward that the person has the right to own the creation of his hands. The theory argues that everything is usually ordinary until a person uses their intellect or labor to modify it, hence making it private. According to the theory, a person's work or intelligence is a natural right, and it must be protected. Before Tim modified the Sirena company's device, the device had been a common good in the market; the modification gives Tim a natural right of ownership of the invention, and the right has to be protected by the law. The labor theory provides that an individual has a natural right to the yields of his intellect/labor, which should be recognized as their property regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible. Mary violated Tim's natural rights by utilizing Tim's idea to modify the miniature video recorder.

Sirena vs. Maria

Sirena Co. can sue Maria over the modification of their device under the personality theory. The change of the miniature video recorder manufactured by Sirena Co. Electronics, Inc. and the reintroduction of the device mentioned above as the Detective Ear by Maria is a violation of Sirena company's intellectual property. The personality theory puts forward that any work or invention is a personal expression of the author's thought inventor. The approach provides that the inventor has the right to decide how their device can be reproduced or availed to the public. The theory aims to prevent mutilations or changes in intellectual properties. Sirena company can sue for the protection of the manifestation of their property.

Sirena vs. Tim

Tim modified a miniature video recorder manufactured, a product of the Sirena Co., without their consent. Sirena Co. can sue Tim over the violation of their intellectual property rights. The company can sue Tim under the personality theory. The theory gives the inventors the sole right to decide how their productions or inventions may be modified or reproduced. According to personality theory, intellectual property rights should be protected as they give the innovators self-assertion.

Sirena's company can also sue Tim under Locke's labor theory. The labor theory provides that every entity has a property right in the labor of their body. The theory also shows that the appropriation of an unowned object comes from applying a person's intellect to the purpose. Tim violated the Sirena company's intellectual property right by modifying their device, hence making it his production.

Question Two

Harm

The harm comes in many forms. In this case, there is the harm in compensatory damages in the form of severe emotional distress. Emotional distress is quantifiable, but it can lead to certain causes of the plaintiff's life. In this case, severe and emotional distress is caused to Anita when she sees a notification on her phone that Tony Soprano is accused of only hiring and promoting women he had a sexual relationship with. Tony Soprano had only work relationships during his campaigning and not a sexual relationship with Anita not as the editorial claims.

Defense

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Intentional infliction of emotional distress states that an act of the defendant's action must be a deliberate act to a specific individual that must result in the outrageous conduct of the plaintiff that exceeds the plaintiff's decent behavior. In this case, Anita does not change his normal working behavior since she proceeds to the office to work despite the editorial note she receives.

Defamation

Defamation refers to the act of intentional communication to the plaintiff. The defendant makes an oral statement that is not true and causes harm to the other party's reputation which leads to his/her damages. The statement/message can be published or communicated made directly to the plaintiff. In this case, the newspaper made an editorial that claimed that Suprano was employing that he had a history of sexual relationship or engagement. This claim made to a public newspaper was not valid since Anita had only a work relationship with Tony Soprano and not a sexual relationship.

Profession Negligence

Negligence occurs when the individual is responsible for committing the wrong carelessly and therefore causing harm to the other party. For negligence to be proven, the plaintiff must prove the act using some elements; otherwise, the neglect is termed as deficient, and no action can be taken against the defendant. These elements include duty, causation, Duty, Harm, and Breach. In this regard, a person owing a duty of protection causes a breach and therefore causes harm to the other person.

In this case, Funny Franklin is a driver, and therefore, based on his training, he owes protection to the public (drive carefully not to cause any harm to the public). Funny Franklin's duty is to drive carefully, serve the public interest, and protect them. Funny Franklin creates professional negligence by texting on his phone while he is driving. He therefore Sways and hits the parked sidewalk Shirley's vehicle.

Assumption of risk

Assumption of risk means that the plaintiff either by implication or expressly understands that causation is inherent to his action, situation, or conduct of damage. In this case, since we are not told where the car owned by Sidewalk Shirley is parked, it is assumed that it is parked on the road's side. This can also be professional negligence, and therefore the plaintiff will take the risks that follow his action.

Causation

There are two types of causation: Actual Causation and Proximate causation. Actual causation refers to a negligent act that the defendant makes that leads to the plaintiff's harm. On the other hand, Proximate causation is a direct, natural, or uninterrupted consequence that requires the foreseeability of the defendant.

In this case, there is an actual cause Anita. Anita is the leading cause of the accident caused by Funny Franklin since she walked across the road without confirming a clear road. Funny Franklin avoided hitting Anita by sweating his vehicle to the side and hitting a car owned by Sidewalk Shirley.

Remedies

In the case stated above, several remedies can be enhanced by the court of law. These remedies include specific performance and workers' compensation. A law court can give an order to stop the newspaper for apologies to the public based on the editorial made against the Soprano. Besides, the law court can order work compensation to Anita due to the emotional distress caused by her by the publication produced by the newspaper.

Question Three

A Uniform Commercial Code is a law that regulates the sale of goods, for instance, personal property such as land. The UCC makes business transactions enforceable by law. In this case, Plaintiff Polly is the owner of the 500 acres of land who then hires Defendant Dan, who fakes to be an expert in real estate. The misrepresentation by Defendant Dan as an expert in real estate is a fraud in law. Defendant Dan had never gone to school to acquire a certificate or degree as an expert but only acquired his online video skills. Therefore, acting as a real estate expert is an illegal practice. Besides, Defendant Dan has never sold a single property. Any breach of contract by defendant Dan is then enforceable in a court of law due to misrepresentation. Dan also fraudulently misrepresents to be a licensed real estate agent. Practicing in the field as a real estate expert without a license is a criminal offense in law. Any contract entered by Defendant Dan with a third party on behalf of Polly would be invalid, and Dan would be liable for damages.

Defendant Dan misrepresents to Polly a standard agreement that charged Plaintiff Poly with twice the regular commission rate of an entry-level real estate. Polly has the right to sue for compensation in a court of law as the charges he paid to Defendant Dan were for an expert, not for a beginner in real estate. If the court found Defendant Dan guilty, Plaintiff Polly would be compensated.

Literacy limitations by Polly grant him a legal right of explanation from Defendant Dan on the contract agreement's contents. Any misinformation by Defendant Dan on what the contract agreement stated would be enforceable in a court of law. The misinformation, “This form is just a formality," grants Plaintiff Polly the right to sue for damages in a court of law. The misinformation by Defendant Dan made Plaintiff sign the contract. Defendant Dan cannot use the signature sign-on contract to defend himself in a court of law as the Plaintiff is illiterate and was misinformed when entering into the contract.

Dan's act of posting the Plaintiff's Polly land on the market without a license is illegal. Polly has no consent that Dan is unlicensed. Dan also goes on and arranges for the potential purchaser to meet Polly, but the purchaser never shows up to the meeting. The prospective purchaser is also a minor aged 17 years old. Defendant Dan goes to the potential purchaser's home and intimidates the small to sign the contract. The law requires a partner to enter into a contract willingly. Defendant Dan's threats forced the minor into the contract, and no consideration was made to make the deal valid.

The minor's action to terminate the contract in three weeks is legally binding as he was forced into the agreement by Dan, and no consideration was made. The minor cannot enter into a contract. The request by Polly to Dan to go on with selling the land is legally bidding though the contract agreement showed that the contract between Polly and Dan was complete when he connected Polly to the minor. The information on what was in the contract agreement by Dan to Polly was misguiding. Polly required clarity of what the contract agreement stated, but Dan took advantage of Polly's illiteracy to persuade him to sign the contract. Polly has the right to sue Defendant Dan as a fraudster in a court of law due to the contract's breach. Minor also has the right to sue Dan in a court of law as he was forced to enter into the contract. Dan's Force Act also grants the minor the capacity to rescind the contract in three weeks.