Reference no: EM13865307

Part A: Briefing Paper - Critical Legal Thinking:

Instructions: Read Pankratz Implement Company v. Citizens National Bank Case.

Questions-

1. Critical Legal Thinking - Should Pankratz's error be excusted? Why or why not?

2. Ethics- Did either party act unethically in this case? Was this a legitimate legal dispute?

3. Contemporary Business- Does the court's decision in this case provide additional certainty to secured creditors' claims? Did the decision signal that there would be fewer or more lawsuits in the future between competing secured creditors?

Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions as articulated in the Critical Legal Thinking, Ethics, and Contemporary Business. Argue both sides of all issues.

Part B: Briefing Paper - Law Case with Answers

Instructions: Read In re Lebovitz Law Case. You can read more about the case by visiting the following link: https://www.tnwb.uscourts.gov/opinions/jdl/pdf/jdl20060609nn1.pdf

Brief the facts of the case, and assume your boss is seeking your opinions on the ECPA and on Federal Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm. Smith's arguments. Argue both sides of the issue.

Part C: Briefing Paper - Critical Legal Thinking Cases

Instructions: Read Sections 13.6 Priority Security Interests; 12.1 Good or Service?; 13.1 Financing Statement; and 12.8 Risk of Loss.

Sections-

12.1 Good or Service? Brenda Brandt was admitted to Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center (Health Center) to receive treatment for urinary incontinence. During the course of an operation, the doctor surgically implanted a ProteGen Sling (sling) in Brandt. Subsequently, the manufacturer of the sling, Boston Scientific Corporation, issued a recall of the sling because it was causing medical complications in some patients. Brandt suffered serious complications and had the sling surgically removed.

Brandt sued Boston Scientific Corporation and Health Center for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability included in Article 2 (Sales) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Health Center filed a motion with the court to have the case against it dismissed. Health Center argued that it was a provider of services and not a merchant that sold goods, and because the UCC (Sales) applies to the sale of goods, Health Center was not subject to the UCC. Health Center proved that Brandt's bill was $11,174.50 total charge for her surgery, with a charge of $1,659.50, or 14.9%, for the sling and its surgical kit. Is the transaction between Brandt and Health Center predominantly the provision of services or the sale of goods? Brandt v. Boston Scientific Corporation and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center, 792 N.E.2d 296, Web 2003 III. Lexis 785 (Supreme Court of Illinois)

13.6 Priority of Security Interests - Paul High purchased various items of personal property and livestock from William and Marilyn McGowen. To secure the purchase price, High granted the McGowens a security interest in the personal property and livestock. Two and one-half months later, High borrowed $86,695 from Nebraska State Bank (Bank) and signed a promissory note, granting Bank a security interest in all his farm products, including but not limited to all his livestock. Bank immediately perfected its security agreement by filing a financing statement with the county clerk in Dakota County, Nebraska. The McGowens perfected their security interest by filing a financing statement and security agreement with the county clerk three months after Bank filed its financing statement. Three years later, High defaulted on the obligations owed to the McGowens and Bank. Whose security interest has priority? McGowen v. Nebraska State Bank, 229 Neb. 471, 427 N.W.2d 772, Web 1988 Neb. Lexis 290 (Supreme Court of Nebraska)
Check the decisions of the highest appellate courts, if a case is cited, for each fact pattern.
Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions on whether each of the four subjects affect business in the United States and if so, provide the worst and best case scenarios.

Part D: Briefing Paper - Ethics Case

Instructions: Read Ethics Case.

Questions-

1. What is a guaranty contract?

2. Did Lynch act ethically in denying liability?

3. Is sales liable to Forsyth County Memorial Hospital Authority, Inc.?