Description

Description irst determine who is the Plaintiff (hint: Penelope) and who is the Defendant (hint: (Davide). I – Begin your answer by stating the legal Issue(s) to the questions presented (…always frame as a question). R – The Rule describes which law or test applies to the issue (name that tort) A – The Analysis is the most important section, and generally the longest part of your answer. It involves applying the Rule to the facts of the problem or question. C – The Conclusion is your answer to the Issue; or the result of the analysis. (yes, no, it depends) https://youtu.be/9U4Ly-pniZw Task: Practice makes perfect! Let’s take all the legal knowledge that you have acquired and apply it to a torts hypothetical fact situation using IRAC (remember back to week 1?). Carefully read the facts of the case below and tease out who is your Plaintiff and who is your Defendant. Toss out any distracting information or “red herrings.” Think about tort legal theories (e.g. battery, negligence) and start to apply facts to the elements of causes of action. Do they match or are there missing elements? Any defenses for your defendant? Torts Hypothetical – Just the Facts: Davide, a College of Marin business student, is (also) a passionate CUTCO knife salesman. One day Davide goes to the Sausalito home of an elderly widow named Penelope. Penelope invites Davide into her well appointed living room with a lovely view of the SF Bay and after Davide gives his initial sales pitch, she curtly tells Davide that she is not interested in any substandard cutlery and asks him to leave pointing her freshly manicured index finger at the front door. In response, Davide starts wildly waving one of the CUTCO butcher knives in Penelope’s face and forces her to sit down on her BOSU ball while emphatically repeating his sales pitch, yet again for another 20 minutes before leaving. What torts (if any) did Davide commit? If Penelope ends up signing a contract to buy $1,000 worth of CUTCO knives, could she have the contract rescinded? (Use your best judgment since we have not studied contracts yet!) This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Issue 5.0 pts Master Issue correctly identified and is stated in the form of a question. 3.0 pts Proficient Issue correctly identified, but may contain extraneous information and is not stated in the form of a question. 2.0 pts Emerging Issue is not completely identified. 0.0 pts No Submission 5.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Rule 5.0 pts Master Rule is correctly identified and is in the form of a statement. 3.0 pts Proficient Rule correctly identified, but may contain extraneous info and is not in the form of a statement. 2.0 pts Emerging Rule is not completely identified. 0.0 pts No Submission 5.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Analysis 5.0 pts Master Correctly identifies facts. Well reasoned discussion relating facts to rule. 3.0 pts Proficient Correctly identifies facts. Not well reasoned. 2.0 pts Emerging Facts not correctly identified. Analysis incoherent. 0.0 pts No Submission 5.0 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Conclusion 5.0 pts Master Summation complete with correct restatement of the issue and rule. Edit

Do you have a similar assignment and would want someone to complete it for you? Click on the ORDER NOW option to get instant services. We assure you of a well written and plagiarism free papers delivered within your specified deadline.