Wrong Deck Flashcards
If a co-felon is killed by a police officer (or a victim) either in self-defense or to prevent escape
the defendant is not guilty of felony murder. The killing by the police officer is considered justifiable homicide.
Under MPC, mental illness defense
Under the Model Penal Code test, a defendant is not guilty when, at the time of the conduct, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he did not have substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act or to conform his conduct to the law.
Caught spouse cheating
Voluntary manslaughter is homicide committed with malice aforethought, but also with mitigating circumstances. It includes homicide committed in response to adequate provocation (i.e., in the “heat of passion”). The woman’s enraged mental state mitigates the crime from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
Saw man commit crime but did not report to police
An accessory after the fact is a person who aids or assists a felon in avoiding apprehension or conviction after commission of the felony. An accessory after the fact must know that a felony was committed, act specifically to aid or assist the felon, and give the aid or assistance for the purpose of helping the felon avoid apprehension or conviction.
Mother asking daughter to steal
Solicitation is the enticing, encouraging, requesting, or commanding of another person to commit a crime with the intent that the other person commits the crime. The encouragement may take the form of enticement, incitement, request, or command. The crime is completed upon the encouragement. The other person need not agree to commit the crime.
robbery but clerk kills bystander
Felony murder is an unintended killing proximately caused by and during the commission or attempted commission of an inherently dangerous felony, including a robbery. Most states apply the agency theory when a bystander is killed by a police officer or due to resistance by the victim of the felony. Under this theory, the felon will not be liable for the death of a bystander caused by a felony victim or police officer because neither person is the felon’s agent.
Attractive Nuisance
Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a land possessor may be liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if:
i) an artificial condition exists in a place the land possessor knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass;
ii) the owner knows or has reason to know that the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to children;
iii) the children, because of their youth, do not discover or cannot appreciate the danger presented by the condition;
iv) the utility to the landowner of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared to the risk of harm presented to children; and
v) the landowner fails to exercise reasonable care to protect children from the harm.
Did not matter that Nuisance was visible.
Join and several liability
Under the doctrine of joint and several liability, each of two or more tortfeasors who is found liable for a single and indivisible harm to the plaintiff is subject to liability to the plaintiff for the entire harm.
Even if only 20% at fault, can be on hook for whole harm of tortfeasors
Informed Consent
Physicians are under a special obligation to explain all material risks of a medical procedure to a patient in advance of a patient’s decision to consent to treatment. Failure of a physician to secure informed consent from the patient constitutes a breach of the physician’s duty toward the patient and is actionable as medical malpractice. Doctors are not under an obligation to disclose when the risk is a commonly known risk, the patient waives or refuses the information, the patient is incompetent (although the physician must make a reasonable attempt to secure informed consent from a guardian), or disclosure would be detrimental to the patient (e.g., it would upset the patient enough to cause extreme illness, such as a heart attack).
Material risks must disclose
Landowner Duty of Care to invitee
While landowners owe some duty of care to anticipated trespassers, they owe no duty to trespassers who are neither discovered nor anticipated.
NEID
A plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress from a defendant whose tortious conduct placed the plaintiff in harm’s way if the plaintiff demonstrates that: (i) he was within the “zone of danger” of the threatened physical impact—that he feared for his own safety because of the defendant’s negligence; and (ii) the threat of physical impact caused emotional distress.
Professional Duty
A professional person, like an electrician, is expected to exhibit the same skill, knowledge, and care as an ordinary professional in the same community. Answer choice A is incorrect because it describes the common law duty of care owed by innkeepers, not professionals.
in the community*
Landowner to Invitee beyond scope of invitation
An invitee is one who enters the land of another by invitation, often, but not necessarily, for the business purposes of the landowner. A landowner owes the greatest duty of care to invitees: he is under the same obligations owed to licensees (duty to warn and to use reasonable care), but he also must conduct reasonable inspections of his property and make the property safe for the protection of invitees. A landowner is liable for any negligence that causes an invitee to be injured due to unsafe conditions. The duty of care owed to an invitee does not extend beyond the scope of the invitation, however, and the invitee is treated as a trespasser in areas beyond that scope
Preexisting Duty Rule
Traditional common law rule
- Promise to perform, or performance of, preexisting duty does not constitute consideration
Modern exception
- Consideration exists if preexisting duty owed to third person (ie, nonparty to contract)
Under the common law, modification of an existing contract is permitted if it is supported by new consideration—i.e., a bargained-for exchange of promises or performance—from both sides of the agreement
As a result, a modification is permitted when there are unanticipated difficulties* and one party agrees to compensate the other so long as the modification is fair and equitable in light of those difficulties.
Accord Agreement
An existing contractual obligation can be discharged by an accord agreement. Under this agreement, a contracting party agrees to accept performance that differs from what was promised in an existing contract in satisfaction of the other party’s existing duty. When a claim is unliquidated or otherwise subject to dispute, it can be discharged by accord and satisfaction if:
the person against whom the claim is asserted tendered a negotiable instrument (e.g., a check)
the instrument was accompanied by a conspicuous statement indicating that it was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim (e.g., “payment in full”) and
the claimant obtained payment of the instrument.
Perfect TEnder Rule
Under the UCC, a requirements contract is a contract under which the buyer agrees to purchase as many goods as the buyer requires from the seller. And under the perfect-tender rule, the goods and the seller’s tender of those goods must fully conform with the terms of the agreement. Substantial performance will not suffice.
Although goods must generally be tendered in a single delivery, this rule does not apply when the contract or circumstances indicate otherwise. For example, a single delivery would be unreasonable when the buyer would clearly have no room to store the goods if they were delivered all at once. In such an event, the buyer is entitled to reject the delivery for imperfect tender.
Impracticability defense
Parties to a contract have an absolute duty to perform unless that duty is discharged. Performance can be discharged due to impracticability if:
an unforeseeable event has occurred
the contract was formed under the basic assumption that the event would not occur and
the party seeking discharge of performance is not at fault.
But if a party assumed the risk of an event happening that made performance impracticable, then the party’s performance will not be discharged by impracticability.
Intended beneficiaries
A third-party beneficiary is a nonparty to a contract who receives some advantage or benefit from that contract. There are two types of third-party beneficiaries:
Intended – who receive a direct benefit from the contract because the contracting parties so intended (e.g., the contract provides that payment will go directly to a third party—as seen here)
Incidental – who receive some indirect benefit from the contract even though there was no contractual intent to benefit them (i.e., all third-party beneficiaries who are not intended beneficiaries)
Intended beneficiaries—not incidental beneficiaries—have contractual rights and may sue to enforce those rights once they vest. This occurs when the beneficiary detrimentally relies on the rights created, manifests assent to the contract at one party’s request, or files a lawsuit to enforce the contract. Until that time, the contracting parties can modify or rescind the contract without the beneficiary’s consent.
condition precedent
Performance is generally due once a contract is formed, but a duty to perform can be delayed or discharged by a condition—i.e., an uncertain future event that must occur before performance becomes due or is discharged. There are two types of conditions:
condition precedent – delays performance until a specified event occurs
condition subsequent – excuses performance once a specified event occurs
A condition precedent will be excused if a party whose performance is subject to that condition wrongfully prevents or interferes with its occurrence—e.g., by breaching the duty of good faith and fair dealing (which includes the duty to cooperate) that is implied in every contract. When this occurs, the condition no longer needs to occur for the interfering party’s performance to become due.
anticipatory repudiation
The doctrine of anticipatory repudiation generally applies when a contracting party clearly and unequivocally indicates an unwillingness to perform a promise before the time for performance is due. Upon repudiation, the nonrepudiating party may:
treat the repudiation as a breach of the contract or
ignore the repudiation and demand performance.
However, this doctrine does not apply when the date of performance has not passed and the nonrepudiating party has fully performed. Under those circumstances, the nonrepudiating party must wait until the repudiating party’s performance is due before filing suit.
Parol Evidence Rule
The parol evidence rule generally bars evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements that contradict the terms of an integrated writing—i.e., a writing that presents the final expression of the parties’ agreement. A writing may be fully or partially integrated. However, the UCC presumes that a contract for the sale of goods (e.g., jewelry) is only partially integrated.* As a result, evidence that supplements a written contract is admissible—but evidence that contradicts the writing is inadmissible.
Substantial performance and recovery
A party who substantially performs contractual obligations (i.e., commits a minor breach) can recover on the contract even though that party has not rendered full performance. The substantially performing party can generally recover the contract price minus any cost that the nonbreaching party incurred to receive full performance.
In contrast, a party who commits a material breach by failing to substantially perform cannot recover under the contract. The breaching party can only recover in restitution for any benefit conferred on the nonbreaching party minus damages for the breach.
UCC Intent to be bound
Under the UCC, a contract for the sale of goods is formed if both parties intend to contract and there is a reasonably certain basis for giving a remedy in the event of a breach. Intent to contract is judged by outward, objective manifestations of intent, as interpreted by a reasonable person. So when an agreement reflects an intent to be bound only if the price is subsequently set, no contract is formed until the price is set.
UCC missing terms
Contract terms must be sufficiently certain and definite for the court to determine the existence of a breach and give an appropriate remedy. While the common law requires that all essential terms be covered in the agreement, the UCC—which governs contracts for the sale of goods—is more liberal.
The UCC encourages contract formation by providing “gap fillers” for many missing terms. For example, if a contract omits a price term—or if the parties agree to set the price in the future but fail to do so—then the UCC supplies a reasonable price at the time of delivery. Therefore, the court should award the manufacturer $3.25 per bottle, which was the reasonable price for the bottles at the time of delivery.