DuPont was constructing a large refining plant designed to enable the use of its new, secret process for producing methanol. Someone who knows a great deal about such refining processes could figure out how DuPont's new process worked by seeing and studying the facility under construction, and so DuPont put security measures in place as the plant was under construction, including a privacy fence around the construction site, restricted access with locked gates, ID checks, and guards who patrolled the perimeter.
But, a competitor rented a small airplane, flew over the construction site, and took aerial photographs. (In more modern times, drones would make this kind of thing much, much easier.) DuPont sued. The defendant competitor claimed that the plant design should not count as a trade secret because DuPont did not take reasonable steps to protect the design.
Will the plant design be determined to be a trade secret?
A No, because it is not the kind of thing that can be a trade secret
B No, because DuPont did not take reasonable measures to protect the design
Bill says proudly to his friend Dean, "Look! I just got the new iPhone!" Holding it side- by-side with his old iPhone, he says, with great enthusiasm, "It's so much better! Look what it can do! Wow!"
Dean thinks that the phones look about the same as Bill rambles on and on. Dean gets really, really bored for a while. But, his attention returns when Bill says, "I need to get rid of this old one. I guess it's not worth much now, not with all these upgrades on the new one!"
"Hmm...can you make calls and check baseball scores on the old one?" Dean asks. "Sure, but oh baby, not like you can on the new one! I mean, the pixel count alone..." "How much would you want for it?" Dean asks.
"Oh. Ah...I'll sell it to you for $50."
"I'll take it," Dean says.
"Oh, ah...OK," Bill says. "But, you know, I didn't really want to sell it. I, ah...I really never meant to, you know, make a real contract or anything. I was just, ah, just talking."
Has Bill made an offer?
A. Yes, because his objective intent was to make an offer.
B. No, because his subjective intent was to not make an offer.
C. No, because he did not use the word "offer" in the statement underlined above. D. No, because he did not write his offer down.
Zehmer is a farmer who owns the Ferguson farm. Lucy is a neighbor who has attempted to buy that farm before. Lucy sees Zehmer in a restaurant and tells him: "I bet you wouldn't take $50,000 for that farm." Zehmer replies: "Yes, I would, too. You wouldn't give fifty." The parties then talked about a potential deal for 40 minutes, writing up one version and then amending it when it dawned on them that Zehmer's wife needed to agree. The document the Zehmers signed said: "We hereby agree to sell to W.O. Lucy the Ferguson Farm complete for $50,000, title satisfactory to the buyer." The parties were drinking alcohol during this time, but were not so drunk as to not understand what they were doing. Later, when Lucy tried to pay, the Zehmers claimed that they were only kidding—it was all a big joke. Lucy sued to enforce the deal. Does a contract exist?
A. No, because Zehmer lacked the required subjective intent to sell.
B. No, because the offer was not sufficiently definite.
I say to you, "I'll sell you this pen for one dollar."
"How about 50 cents?" you ask.
"Well, I don't really know much about rap," I reply.
"No," you say, shaking your head. "For the pen. I'll pay you 50 cents for the pen."
"Ah," I say. "No, that's not enough."
"OK, OK, I'll buy it for $1," you say.
Do we have an accepted offer?
Rick, when he was 16 years old, bought a used car from Car World for $5,000. He drove the car for a year and put 15,000 miles on the odometer. He was also involved in a minor accident.
At age 17, Rick wants to disaffirm the contract with Car World and get a full $5,000 refund. Car World objects. Its owner says, "Look, the car has higher miles that it did last year, and even if it wasn't damaged from the wreck, I could only sell it for $4,000. And with the damage on top of the higher miles, I can't sell it for more than $3,000. And besides, I sold this car more than a year ago - I shouldn't have to issue any refund at all."
What refund should Rick receive if a court applies the rule that is applicable in most states?
Sid works at a day care. Most of his coworkers are women. By all accounts, he does a good job caring for the children in his care.
One night, the owner of the day care runs into Sid outside a movie theater. Sid is smoking. The owner fires Sid on the spot, citing a strict no smoking policy that is part of Sid's employment contract. "We can't have smokers around the children," she says.
The next day, the owner hires a woman to take over Sid's duties.
Sid sues. He argues that lots of his coworkers, men and women, smoke when off-duty. He presents evidence that 3 men have been caught smoking in the last few years, and 5 women. The men were all fired, and none of the women were fired.
Which of the following is probably true?
A. Sid has established a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination.
B. The employer will be able to rebut the prima facie case by arguing a legitimate business reason for the firing (the violation of the no smoking policy)
C. Sid will be able to argue that the rebuttal is a mere pretext for his firing.
D. A and B
E. A, B, and C.
Tom and Jim, a couple married in 2016, have four significant Assets
-50,000 in a bank account into which they have both deposited paychecks since 2016
-200,000 home tom paid off in 2014
-30,000 car they bought in 2018
-20,000 car Jim inherited from his grandmother in 2019
What is the total value of tom and jims community property if they lived in a community property state
2nd Edition•ISBN: 9780312676506Lawrence Scanlon, Renee H. Shea, Robin Dissin Aufses 3rd Edition•ISBN: 9781133467199Darlene Smith-Worthington, Sue Jefferson 1st Edition•ISBN: 9780312388065Carol Jago, Lawrence Scanlon, Renee H. Shea, Robin Dissin Aufses ISBN: 9781285439594David W. Moore, Deborah Short, Michael W. Smith