1. "An organization can always be sued in the same way as a person." Is that statement true? Explain your answer.

2. What is a "class action"? Describe a situation in which a class action may be desirable.

8. What is the difference between a statement of claim and a counterclaim?

9. What is an "examination for discovery"? What purposes do examinations for discovery serve?

11. Explain the meaning of these two phrases: "the balance of probabilities" and "beyond a reasonable doubt." In what type of case will each phrase be used?

14. "Winning in court is often the easy partenforcing the judgment may be much more difficult." Discuss that statement.

15. Explain how the courts use the concept of costs to encour[1]age parties to behave appropriately.

17. Explain the advantages and disadvantages of suing in a small claims court.

18. Describe the "doctrine of precedent." Explain how it is related to the court hierarchy and to the rule of law.

20. Define the term "alternative dispute resolution." Name three forms of ADR and identify some of the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Case 2

Nine years ago, Papandreou Financial Services Inc entered into a long-term contract with Merkel Gratuities Ltd. Until recently, both parties performed faithfully, and both were very happy with their arrangements. Last week, however, Merkel alleged that Papandreou had committed various forms of misconduct within the past year. Papandreou has angrily denied all of those allegations, and it insists, on the contrary, that Merkel owes it a great deal of money. Merkel would like to sue Papandreou, but it is worried about several things. First, it is concerned that since the contract is quite old, any legal action would be barred by the pas[1]sage of time. Second, Merkel is worried that the law may not be on its side. The most important allegation against Papandreou raises a difficult question of law. Different Canadian courts have given different answers to the ques[1]tion. Merkel and Papandreou created and performed their contract in a single province. The courts of that province have not yet addressed the issue. Trial judges in some other provinces have held in favour of parties in Merkel's posi[1]tion. Appellate judges in a third set of provinces have held in favour of parties in Papandreou's position. Third, Merkel is concerned that it does not have all the information that it would need to prove its case, and Papandreou has said that it would never provide that information. Fourth, Merkel knows that lawsuits are expensive. It is worried that if it sues Papandreou, then Papandreou will turn around and sue it. Merkel therefore is concerned that it may have to pay for two completely separate sets of lawyers, two completely separate sets of documents, and so on. Should Merkel really be worried about any of these four issues? Explain your answer

Case 3

Malcolm Poole is unhappy. He recently won his claim against a corporation for breach of contract, and the court awarded him damages of nearly $400 000. The company paid the damages almost immediately. Today, however, his lawyer, Ellie Little, presented Malcolm with her final bill. Two years ago, when he hired her, Malcolm explained that since he was broke, he would not be able to pay Ellie very much money if his claim failed. After a long discussion, the parties came to a verbal agreement. Although Ellie would not charge anything if the case was lost, she would be entitled to 75 percent of any money that she won on Malcolm's behalf. Ellie therefore insists that Malcolm must pay $300 000 for her services. He agrees that she did a good job, but he believes that she is demanding far too much money. Is Ellie entitled to $300 000? If not, is she entitled to anything? Explain your answer.