Featured Case: Anthony v. Blum

As reported in an article in The Business Lawyer:

In Anthony v. Blum,(1999 WL 259726 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 23, 1999)). a Connecticut case, Blum had negligently represented Anthony and, in settlement, Blum executed a $10,400 promissory note on behalf of his law firm (an LLC), payable to plaintiff. Plaintiff sued Blum on the note and argued that Blum's negligence constituted the consideration for the note, thereby entitling plaintiff to hold Blum personally liable. The court held, however, that "the present action is not a malpractice action but a breach of contract action" in which the law firm was the obligor and for which "Blum is not personally liable."

So, the lawyer escapes liability on the note issued by the LLC to settle the case based on the lawyer's malpractice.  No wonder lawyers have a bad reputation for slick maneuvering.

Law Lessong - Take it Reasonably

The next installment in the “Law Lessong” series is Take it Reasonably. This simple video and song from a Power Point presentation helps students consider the nature of the law of negolgence. Learn more about Law Lessongs from the post found here.  More videos may be found at my youtube channel. Please feel free to use them in the classroom or as assignments or in any way that they work for you as an educational resource.

Mutuality of Consideration: The "So That" Test and the Case of the Freakin' Thirsty Grandma

Having trouble with consideration principles? Fuhggeddabouhdit! This is sooooo simple!

Thank you Elura Nanos and Michele Sileo.

Jury Nullification Described

Looking past the Libertarian political overtones, this video gives a brief but effective description of the concept of jury nullification.

Law Music Video - The Long Arm of the Law

This week's installment in the "Law Music Videos" series is The Long Arm of the Law by Warren Zevon. Law music videos played before your class starts will positively contribute to learning.

Guest Blogger: Henry Lowenstein - Punitive Damage Award: Time = Money

Henry Lowenstein from Coastal Carolina University sent in the following:

I thought you might be interested in this just published case from the Court of Appeals in South Carolina on punitive damages. Cody P. v. Bank of America, August 23, 2011.

The 11 page opinion is  written in very plain language is a good walk through for students of the Court's logic in determining punitive damages that pass constitutional muster and those that violate due process (re:  U.S. Supreme Court in BMW v. Gore, and, State Farm Ins. v. Campbell.)

The case is interesting from a business standpoint as it involved the failure of the Bank of America to properly handle a conservatorship account (trust account) that is set up by the Probate Court in this state to protect the insurance proceeds for a disabled child. At the end of the day, experts testified that it would have taken the bank one hour to properly set up the account with their established safeguards.  So the punitive award was calculated to equal the earnings of the Bank of America for one hour......$1,583,000.

editor's note:  I added the image below:

source of image: South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Featured Case: Stambovsky v. Ackley - A Ghostly Silence Undermines Contract

Helen Ackley's beautiful victorian house in Nyack, NY was for sale. From the opinion of the Appelate Division of  NY Supreme Courts:

Plaintiff, to his horror, discovered that the house he had recently contracted to purchase was widely reputed to be possessed by poltergeists, reportedly seen by defendant seller and members of her family on numerous occasions over the last nine years. Plaintiff promptly commenced this action seeking rescission of the contract of sale.

Stambovsky, a resident of NY City, was not familiar with the local folklore surrounding the house at 1 LaVeta Place when he paid a $32,500 deposit on a $650,000 purchase contract. But, Ackley had made no secret of the paranormal activity in her house, writing an article for Reader's Digest entitled, "My Haunted House on the Hudson" and listing her residence on local haunted house tours.

Normally, a seller has no obligation to disclose "defects" in the house. Caveat Emptor has been the legal rule of the day.  But, as Judge Rubin points out in his decision:

From the perspective of a person in the position of plaintiff herein, a very practical problem arises with respect to the discovery of a paranormal phenomenon: "Who you gonna' call?" as a title song to the movie "Ghostbusters" asks. Applying the strict rule of caveat emptor to a contract involving a house possessed by poltergeists conjures up visions of a psychic or medium routinely accompanying the structural engineer and Terminix man on an inspection of every home subject to a contract of sale.

This very practical decision rests also on other solid grounds:

In the case at bar, defendant seller deliberately fostered the public belief that her home was possessed. Having undertaken to inform the public- at large, to whom she has no legal relationship, about the supernatural occurrences on her property, she may be said to owe no less a duty to her contract vendee.

Stambovsky was allowed to rescind the contract.  I imagine that Ackley's subsequent advertisements  read: "Haunted House For Sale!"

See UPDATE on this case here.

The Stambovsky House: photo credit: http://www.berfrois.com/2011/04/the-law-is-a-white-dog/ 

Photo credit: http://nyackphotos.blogspot.com/2010/03/haunted-house.html
:

Photo credit: http://ktransit.com/Kavanagh/Ghost/ghost.htm