Case on Point Assignment (1)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Regent University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
553
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by ChancellorArtEmu33
Jameika Draughn
MLAW 553
Week 5 Assignment: Is the Case on Point?
Part I
For the following fact situations, use the statutory and case law presented
in the hypothetical libel case presented in the “Application” section of
Chapter 12 (pg. 342-344). The case referred to in the hypothetical is
Goodman v. White.
The question is whether the client has committed
defamation. Libel is written defamation; slander is oral defamation. For
each fact situation, determine if
Goodman v. White
is on point. Provide a
brief explanation of your answer. For example, if the key facts are not
sufficiently similar, explain why they are not.
Question 1
The client is at a party when he sees a person whom he falsely believes has
cheated him in a business deal. He approaches the person, pulls him off to
the side and says, “You are a liar and cheat. You cheated me out of that
contract.” People standing nearby heard the comments. The client didn’t
intend for others to hear, but he wasn’t careful to keep his voice down.
a.
Are the key facts sufficiently similar for the court opinion to apply as
precedent?
The key facts in
Goodman v. White
are not sufficiently similar to this matter,
in this case, the defamatory statement was made in a published context,
whereas in this matter the statement was made in a private conversation.
b.
Are the rules of law sufficiently similar for the court opinion to apply
as precedent?
No, the rules of law in
Goodman v. White
are not sufficiently similar to the given
matter,
Goodman v. White
dealt with libel defamation (written) whereas this
matter involves slander (oral defamation).
c.
Is the case on point? Provide a brief explanation.
Goodman v. White
is not on point because the key fact and the rules of law
are not sufficiently similar.
Question 2
The client writes a letter to the local newspaper claiming that a local store
intentionally sold her defective merchandise. On the way to the post office
to mail the letter, she runs into a friend, Jim. After she tells Jim the story, he
informs her that the merchandise is not defective, but rather that she has
simply misread the directions. The client does not mail the letter, but on the
way home, the letter falls out of the client’s pocket. A passerby finds the
letter and puts it in the mail. The local newspaper subsequently publishes
the letter.
a.
Are the key facts sufficiently similar for the court opinion to apply as
precedent?
The key facts in
Goodman v. White
are not sufficiently similar to this given
fact pattern because in this case, the defamatory statement was published
in a newspaper , whereas in this matter, the client did not intentionally
publish the letter, it was found and published by a passerby.
b.
Are the rules of law sufficiently similar for the court opinion to apply
as precedent?
In
Goodman v. White
as well as this matter, they both delt with libel
defamation. However, in this matter the defamatory letter was not
intentionally published.
c.
Is the case on point? Provide a brief explanation.
Goodman v. White
is not on point. The key facts and rules of law are not
sufficiently similar.
Question 3
The client falsely believes that Alice, a college student, is a drug dealer. He
mails her a letter, addressed to “Alice,” claiming that she sells drugs to
schoolchildren and should go to jail. Alice shares an apartment with her
boyfriend, a medical student. The client is aware of the fact that Alice and
her boyfriend occasionally open each other’s mail. When the letter arrives
Alice’s boyfriend opens and reads it.
a.
Are the key facts sufficiently similar for the court opinion to apply as
precedent?
The key facts in
Goodman v. White
are not sufficiently similar to this fact
pattern due to the method in which the defamatory statements were
delivered. In
Goodman v. White
, the defamatory statement was delivered
through the mail, whereas in this matter the defamatory statement was
opened and read by someone other than the intended party.
b.
Are the rules of law sufficiently similar for the court opinion to apply
as precedent?
The rules of law in
Goodman v. White
are no sufficiently similar to this
matter because even though they both deal with libel(written) defamation,
this matter involves a situation where the defamatory letter was not
intended to be read by anyone other than the intended recipient.
c.
Is the case on point? Provide a brief explanation.
Goodman v. White
is not on point because the key facts and the rules of
law are not sufficiently similar.
Part II
Mr. Smart is the owner of a home in the River View Subdivision. Mr.
Smart is the president of the River View Home Owners Association. The
subdivision is a private residential community consisting of approximately
200 homes. Each home is located on a one-acre lot. The subdivision is
subject to the covenants and restrictions contained in the Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of River View Subdivision, recorded
on June 1, 2001. The relevant portions of the covenants and restrictions
provide as follows:
The following covenants and restrictions shall run with the land and
shall bind the purchasers, their heirs, successors and assigns, until
abrogated by a duly recorded agreement executed by the owners of a
majority of the residential lots affected by the restrictions.
1.
USE. No lot shall be used except for residential purposes. No
commercial or business activity shall be conducted within the
Subdivision with the exception of a personal home office.
Last year, Mr. Gordon Carpenter purchased a home in the subdivision.
The deed to the property includes a notation that the property is subject to
the Conditions and Restrictions of River View Subdivision. Mr. Carpenter
operates a welding business. When they are not in use, he parks two of his
one-and-one-half-ton welding trucks on a large parking area that he has
cleared next to his residence. He uses the trucks solely in conjunction with
his business. At the residence, Mr. Carpenter performs routine maintenance
and minor repairs on the trucks.
Mr. Smart, acting as president of the home owners’ association, advised
Mr. Carpenter that parking the trucks on the property violates the
restrictive covenant limiting the use of the property to residential use. Mr.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Carpenter refuses to stop parking the trucks at his property. The property is
located in the state of Pennsylvania.
Read
Baumgardner v. Stuckey
(attached) and answer the following
questions.
(Note: This is the same case you read for a question in the Issue
Spotting assignment. We will be using this fact pattern and case for your
final memo as well.)
a.
Are the key facts sufficiently similar for the court opinion to apply as
precedent?
The key facts in
Baumgardner v. Stuckey
are sufficiently similar to the
above fact pattern because both involve a dispute over the interpretation
and enforcement of restrictive covenants in a residential community. Both
cases involve the violation of covenants by the homeowners, which lead to
conflict with either other residents or the association.
b.
Are the rules of law sufficiently similar for the court opinion to apply
as precedent?
The rules of law in
Baumgardner v. Stuckey
are sufficiently similar to the
above fact pattern because both cases involve the interpretation and
enforcement of restrictive covenants in a residential community, particularly
addressing the
permissible uses of property in the community.
c.
Is the case on point? Provide a brief explanation.
Baumgardner v. Stuckey
is on point with the above fact pattern, because the
facts and rules of law are sufficiently similar, which makes these cases
directly applicable in the comparison of the dispute between Mr. Smart and
Mr. Carpenter over the property in the River View Subdivision.