WEEK 5

Sunday, September 16, 2018 1:19 AM

1. Review the Ethics Case 17.7 found on page 311 of the textbook, entitled
Executive Financial Services, Inc. v. Pagel. Which party or parties should
win this case. Please write in IRAC form.

ISSUE: Who should win the case? Did Mohr and Lloyd act ethical in this
case? Who owns the tractors, EFS or the farmers?

RULE: According to Cheeseman H. "an act of a partner, which is not,

apparently for carrying on of the business of the partnership in the usual
way does not bind the relationship unless authorized by the other
partners" ; The real owners of the tractors is the EFS since they bought it
from Tri-Country Company but there are some things that needed to be
considered.

APPLICATION: Here, Mohr and Lloyd clearly breached the contract in this
case. The farmers may own it if they bought it with honesty and were unaware
of the real owner, But, the compensation to EFS should be coming from Mohr
and Lloyd. And on the other issue, if the farmers knew about the real owners
and still managed to purchase the tractors, then they can be enforced by the
court to return in to the real owner.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, considering this case, I believe that Mohr and

Lloyd didn't act ethically in this issue and EFS remains to be the owner of
the tractors

2. Review the Critical Legal Thinking Cases Case #19.5 on page 344 entitled
Karns v. Emerson Electric Co. Using IRAC, which party or parties should
prevail and why?

ISSUE: Who is liable in this case?

RULE: Manufacturers and sellers owe a duty to warn consumers and users
about the dangers of using this product. A proper and conspicuous warning
placed on the product insulates the manufacturer and others in the chain of
distribution from strict liability. Failure to warn of these dangerous
propensities is a defect that will support a strict liability action.
ISSUE: Who is liable in this case?

RULE: Manufacturers and sellers owe a duty to warn consumers and users
about the dangers of using this product. A proper and conspicuous warning
placed on the product insulates the manufacturer and others in the chain of
distribution from strict liability. Failure to warn of these dangerous
propensities is a defect that will support a strict liability action.

APPLICATION: Here, the owner's manual contained the following, "Keep

children away. All people and pets should be kept at a safe distance from the
work area, at least 30 feet, especially when using the blade." the warnings
were inadequate to apprise the consumers about the danger of the kickback
occurring when the saw blade comes in contact with something too large for
it to cut. And also, the bystander has no access to the warnings.

CONCLUSION: Therefor, I believe that Emerson Electric Co. was liable

despite the fact that the product's manual has warning about the danger and
precautions of the product and the appropriate distance for bystanders.