Exam 1 & Cases

Question 1

Seixas & Seixas v. Woods Case Brief

Answer 1

• facts = plaintiff buys wood thinking it’s the one they requested; defendant says they didn’t know they sold the wrong wood and didn’t give a refund

Procedural History

• trial court (plaintiff sues defendant and wins)
• defendant appeals in appellate court (middle level court) and court reverses trial court’s ruling so seller wins
• issues:
  1) fraud/deceit
  2) express warranty
  3) implied warranty

type of wood was stated in invoice, advertisement, and bill of parcels

caveat emptor = “let the buyer beware” (ruling from 1603 common law of England)

• result:
• court sticks with English caveat emptor rule instead of implied warranty because
  1) buyer could have bought warranty
  2) implied warranty is not law yet so court relied on English ruling of caveat emptor from a 1603 case

Judge Kent prefers implied warranty but ruled with the majority (caveat emptor) because no implied warranty law is in place. Mentions this so that legislature can make it law and cites corpus juris civilus.

Question 2

corpus juris civilus

Answer 2

“body of civil law”

collection of fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued from 529 to 534 by order of Justinian I, Byzantine Emperor

sometimes referred to metonymically after one of its parts, the Code of Justinian.

Question 3

jurisprudence

Answer 3

legal theory

provide a deeper understanding of legal reasoning and analogy, legal systems, legal institutions, and the role of law in society

Question 4

Burger King v. Rudzewicz

Answer 4

• facts = Rudzewicz opens a BK franchise in Michigan, contract for 21 hrs, BK headquarters in Florida, corporate asked Rudzewicz to close their franchise to due poor sales but they didn’t and continued operating
• procedural history =
• • BK sues defendants in Southern District of Florida District Court (federal court) using the long arm statute to obtain personal jurisdiction
• • interpretation of due process clause (US Constitution) because long arm statute allows plaintiff to get people to their court if they don’t live there (minimum contacts test)
• • BK wins at District Court of Florida and awarded $229,000
• • defendant appeals in 11th Circuit Court of Appeals - says they are residents of Michigan and long arm statute couldn’t be used
• • Court of Appeals reverses decision and defendant wins because Florida court has no personal jursidiction
• • US Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeals decision
• • Florida court does have personal jurisdiction and BK wins
• defendant should have known they could have been sued in Florida based on their contract and following factors:
• • 20 yr contract with BK headquarter
• • BK headquarter is in FL
• • defendant negotiated with headquarter
• • purchased equipment from FL
• • 1 defendant had training in FL
• • payment are sent to headquarter

Question 5

certiorari

Answer 5

“hear by the appeal”

US Supreme Court decides to hear a case

Question 6

• know court system layout

Answer 6

• supreme court
• intermediate court (court of appeals)
• trial court

Question 7

voir dire

Answer 7

speak the truth

Question 8

venire

Answer 8

jury pool of 12

Question 9

preponderance

Answer 9

51%

“more likely than not”

Question 10

6 motions that use the same legal test

Answer 10

1. motion to dismiss
2. motion for judgement on pleadings
3. motion for summary judgement
   4 & 5. directed verdict motions after plaintiff’s and defendant’s cases
4. JNOV

*these ask for the defendant to win