March 31, 2012

PL 100--Introduction to Paralegal Studies

Week #11

This week’s assignment starts with reading Chapter 15 of the text, “Contracts and Intellectual Property Law”. Contract law is an unusual mixture of sources of law. For the most part, it is governed by the terms that the parties themselves create. The rules about interpreting and enforcing those private agreements, though come largely from common law (with the rules themselves made by the Maine Supreme Court, as opposed to the Legislature), with some statutes thrown in (such as the UCC, p.507).

For the writing assignment for this week, I’ve chosen a question regarding the situation when the parties have some understanding between themselves, but then one of them dies. The estate of the decedent may not be interesting in carrying out the same informal arrangement. The Maine Supreme Court then creates common law to decide what the rules are, as well as applying those to the facts before it.

Start out by reading the Maine Supreme Court case of Paffhausen v. Balano, 1998 ME 47, 708 A.2d 269.

The case can be found on the website of the Maine Supreme Court.

To access the case, go to
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html

Select Published Opinions
--scroll down to “1998 Opinions”

--select Paffhausen v. Balano, , 1998 ME 47 (March 6, 1998)

For this assignment, we will be again be traveling in a time machine to a point in time when David Paffhausen first comes into your law office, before there has been any court case, but once the facts of his relationship with Elizabeth Balano have happened; in other words, assume that Paffhausen describes to you what the Law Court reported through ¶ 3 of the Opinion.

From that point on, the time machine lets your office try to achieve a better result for Paffhausen by trying to get the other side to agree to your demands without having to actually go to Court.

The advantage that you have, though, is that you know the law that comes out of the Paffhausen case.

So Paffhausen has described to you the situation outlined through ¶3, and you know the rules (as announced in the Paffhausen decision), and you’re trying to negotiate a settlement and to avoid a trial.

Your assignment is to draft a demand letter to the Balano Estate, trying to convince them to pay for the value of the services rendered by your client. Explanation of the role and form of a Demand Letter on found at p. 286-287. Your client wants to be paid for the value of his labor and for the the materials that he put into working on the building. Your letter must

a) go over the facts of the situation
b) explain what the law is in this situation
c) apply that law to the facts of the case
d) demand the relief that your client seeks.

Remember that you are not writing to lawyers, but to bereaved family members. Your goal is to try to reach agreement with them, so don’t adopt a tone that would frustrate that goal. Your explanations must be clear and simple, but accurate.

How many grammatical mistakes and misspellings do you want in a demand letter to the other side? None.

Your letter will be due by noon on Sunday, April 8st.

If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me with them.

March 24, 2012

PL 100-- Introduction to Paralegal Studies
PL 100 Week #10

This week’s assignment starts with reading Chapter 14 of the text, “Tort Law, Product Liability, and Consumer Law”. Tort law is largely governed by common law (with the rules themselves made by the Maine Supreme Court, as opposed to the Legislature), while product liability and consumer law are primarily statutory.

For the writing assignment for this week, I’ve chosen a question regarding the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (see text p. 463-4). So the Maine Supreme Court is deciding what the rules are, as well as applying them to the facts before them.

Start out by reading the Maine Supreme Court case of Lyman v. Huber , 2010 ME 139, 10 A. 3d 707.

The case can be found on the website of the Maine Supreme Court.

To access the case, go to
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html

Select Published Opinions
--scroll down to “2010 Opinions”

--select Lyman v. Huber , 2010 ME 139 (12/28/2010)

For this assignment, we will be traveling in a time machine to a point in time when Ms. Lyman first comes into your law office, before there has been any court case, but once the facts of her relationship with Huber have happened; in other words, assume that Lyman describes to you what the Law Court reported through ¶ 9 of the Opinion. From that point on, the time machine lets your office try to achieve a better result for Lyman than that achieved in the real Law Court decision. All we’re concerned with is the intentional infliction of emotional distress issue.

The advantage that you have, though, is that you know the law that comes out of the Lyman case. One inherent unfairness of common law is that a Court announces in a case the rules that the parties should have followed up to that point (even though the rules weren’t clear until the Court announces them right in this very case). You, though, know the rules announced in the Lyman case, and can alter what happens before trial and in the trial court to try to get a better outcome for Lyman.

So Ms. Lyman has described to you the situation outlined through ¶9, and you know the rules (as announced in the Lyman decision), and you’re preparing the case for the trial.

Your assignment is to write an internal memo to your attorney/boss, answering two questions that she has posed to you.

The first question is whether the office a) must or b) should in any case, refer Ms. Lyman to some sort of medical professional to evaluate the extent of her emotional distress, as well as to offer treatment as appropriate. You already have Lyman’s own statements about the emotional distress, as well as those of her family and friends, but the question posed to you by your attorney is about the necessity/advisability of getting some professional help and/or expert testimony that will be helpful in a trial. If professional treatment is indicated, please also include your recommendation about the timing of that treatment in relation to the start of a court case.

The second question is whether you have any other recommendations to Ms. Lyman about things that she might do before a court case is started.

Your memo should be accurate, but also clear and simple. How many grammatical mistakes and misspellings do you want in a memo to your boss? None.

Your letter will be due by noon on Sunday, April 1st.

If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me with them.