1. Wrongful Interference. Su is a lead manager of the leadership development program for a national retail company called Solman. She's made significant contribution to the program to train all store managers and had even received high praises from the company's CEO for the program's success. After 5 years in this position, she asks to be transferred to Seattle to be closer to her parents. As part of her transfer deal, she signs a 3year employment contract with Solman. A year into the contract, Su is ready to move on to something new. She secretly starts initiating contact in her network to explore career opportunities elsewhere. Bomington, one of Solman's biggest retail competitors, approaches Su while fully aware that Su's contract with Solman was still effective for another two years. Bomington and Su maintain stealth communication six months, during which time Su states that she intended to continue working for Solman until her contract officially ends, but she also expresses her interest in working for Bomington to kickstart its own leadership development program. Bomington knows that Su has also been talking to other companies and it might lose of her to one of its competitors. Bomington doubles its initial salary offer and promises her exclusive control of its leadership development program. Su finally agrees to terminate her contract with Soman. Bomington also promises Su that it would pay for all costs and fees associated with litigating the breach of contract. Solman sues Bomingtonfor tortuous interference with its contract with Su. Will the court agree with Solman that Bomington committed the tort of wrongful interference with a contractual relationship? Discuss.

2. Comparative Negligence. One day, Kai goes to Pacific Market, an Asian grocery store, to buy ingredients to make Pad Thai for dinner with his new girlfriend. While shopping around, he encounters a tank full of live Dungeness crabs in the corner of the seafood section of the store. The crabs are on sale - 20% off the regular price. Kai thinks about buying a few for his family who loved crabs. The employees are busy helping other customers with the fish orders at the counter so he waits for his turn. While Kai waits, he realizes that about 34 crabs on top of the tank are not moving. To verify for himself whether they are dead, he sticks his hand in the tank in an attempt to provoke them to move. At first, they do not move, so he continues to poke at them with his fingers. One crabs suddenly bites his index finger and won't release. Kai's scream catches the attention of the workers. They rush over and amputate the crab's claw to release Kai's finger. Kai suffers a fractured bone and intense pain. Kai brings a negligence lawsuit against Pacific Market in state court for not warning him about the crabs and therefore causing him injury. The jury finds that Kai was 60% at fault. Discuss whether Kai would be able to recover any damages from this lawsuit if the state follows the pure comparative negligence rule. Also discuss whether he would recover if the state instead has the "50 percent" comparative negligence rule.

3.LiabilitytoBusinessInvitee. Suandhersister,Lin,rentamotelroominLastChance, Colorado,duringtheirvisittoattendtheircousin'swedding.Ontheirsecondnight,threeintruderskickopenthedoor,shootatthem,andinjureLin.intruders kick open the door, shoot at them, and injure Lin. The intruders also takes $1,500 from the sisters. The sisters sue the motel owners, claiming that the owners was negligent in providing adequately for the safety of the motel's guests. At trial, the evidence shows that the door has a hollow core and that it fits poorly into the door frame. There is no deadbolt lock on the door, although such locks are easily available and commonly used in motels. The only lock on the door is one fitted into the door handle, which is described as a grade three lock, although a security chain is attached to the door. The sisters have both locked and chained the door, but still, a single kick on the part of the intruders is all that is necessary to open it. Evidence at trial also indicates that a deadbolt lock would have withstood the force that is applied to the door. Does the motel owners have a duty to protect their guests from criminal acts on the motel premises, and if so, does the owners breach that duty of care by failing to provide more secure locks on the doors of the motel rooms?

Please use IRAC methods ( Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion)