Topless Deep Sea Fishing Trip Contract?

There's a post title that will draw attention!  Does the pictured written memorandum memorialize a contractual obligation?

What are the issues?

1. Consideration: Was a ride on the topless deep sea fishing trip provided in exchange for the I.O.U. promise?  Or is this a promise to provide a gift to a friend in the future?

2. Condition and Performance: "When I graduate" and "when I have money" appear to be conditions precedent to performance.  What if he never graduates, yet acquires money?  What if he graduates but never has money? How much money is enough to be considered "having money"?

3. Sufficiently Certain and Definite: How much money is to be paid for the described event? Why not simply state the amount to be paid?  Or is the amount to be determined in reference to price of the trip on the future day of payment?  Who goes topless?

4. Legality: Did this trip originate in a place where topless-ness is legal? Or was the topless part of the activity to take place outside of the territorial waters of the US?

5. Capacity:  Was there any intoxication issue? Does it appear to be sufficient to affect contractual capacity?

Maybe it should be an exam question.

Source of image: Total Frat Move

Chinese Company Understands Profit, But Not Product Liability

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a District Court ruling that there is personal jurisdiction in US courts over a Chinese drywall manufacturer.  If you are not familiar with the legal, environmental and health issues related to Chinese drywall use in US buildings, click here for a summary, or watch the ABC video report below

Apparently the company never responded to this lawsuit and was subjected to a default judgment.  They claim that they did not understand the implications of the lawsuit.  As the judge noted, that's what American law firms are for.

Chinese Drywall Report from ABC:

Fired For Observing Patriotic Flag Protocol

Federal Law states:

The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning. 

4 U.S.C. section 8.

Rick Heilman, a 22 year Navy veteran, noticed the National flag flying outside his work place was tattered.  He asked his manager if he could take the flag down until a replacement was obtained.  He was twice told, "no."  After thinking about it over the weekend, he returned to work on Monday and took down the flag. Whereupon, he was fired for insubordination.

According to the news report:

Yearwood Equipment Company’s management would not speak on camera, but did reiterate that Heilman was not fired for replacing the flag. 

Right! He was NOT fired for replacing the flag. He was fired for replacing the flag after his boss told him not to, even though replacing the flag was the right thing to do.

Is it tuh-MAY-toe or toe-MAH-toe?

Of course, the employment-at-will doctrine protects the employer, allowing employee dismissal for good reason, for no reason and even for a bad reason.  Some states recognize public policy exceptions to employment at will for employees who are fired for engaging in an important public activity. North Carolina law ought to recognize that displaying proper respect for the national flag trumps the superficial bruising of a boss's ego.

The NSA Song

From Bob Noone and the Well Hung Jury:

Truth in Advertising: Still Lovin' It?

BuzzFeed has produced a video comparing the food pictured in McDonald's commercials to what the restaurant actually serves. Not surprisingly, there appears to be a substantial difference between what is advertised and what is delivered. Do the advertised images exceed the limits of expected "puffery" to be factually deceiving? That sounds like a discussion question for class.

Dam**ed Contracts, Again!

We've been experiencing a horrible winter in the Northeast, as well as elsewhere, with snowfall accumulations far exceeding normal ranges.  Last week on a day when the all the schools in Connecticut closed and the governor told state employee to stay home from work (except those whose job included cleaning up the snow) and urged all other people to stay off the roads, one important social institution braved the elements  - the mall was open.  The Buckland Hills Mall in Manchester Connecticut was open, and because tenants have clauses in their leases that they are subject to "heavy fines" if the stores are closed when the mall is open, all the stores required their employees to defy the governor's request and risk life, limb, and property damage to open their stores. Thankfully, most people resisted the normally overwhelming impulse to buy overpriced handbags or trendy clothing in a blizzard and stayed home.  The mall closed early sending the intrepid employees back out to brave the elements in order to get home.

It's a good thing that contract law imposes the "reasonable person" standard on the interpretation of contracts because left to their own devices, we apparently can't count on people to act reasonably.

Click here or on the image below to see the video news report:

Dam**d Contracts!

A college student participating in a half-time promotion sunk an incredible one handed half-court shot as time expired on the contest. However, he won't collect the $10,000 prize money. The contest required the contestant to sink a layup, a free throw, a three point shot and a half-court shot in the allotted time to win the prize. But the contract said that while the contestant could have as many attempts as time allowed for the first three shots, he was allowed only one attempt at the half court shot. Unfortunately for the contestant, the one handed fall away banker came after he missed his first attempt at the half court shot.  The school bought an insurance policy for the contest and they say the insurer will not pay.  Dam**d Contracts!

Click on the image below to watch the drama unfold:



This video has been on and off the internet several times already, so here is another link just in case. And another.

Read the contract: