12. Mary Brown is suing Doctor Haney for medical malpractice and Mary Brown and Doctor Haney agree to attend arbitration to try the lawsuit. Both parties attend arbitration, try the case before the arbitrator, and a decision is rendered in favor of Doctor Haney by the arbitrator. Mary Brown appeals the arbitration decision to the local District Court and the following is true:

a) The District Courts review of the arbitration decision will be governed by the same standards that an Appellate Court would review a Trial Courts decision;

b) The District Courts review of the arbitration decision will generally be more restricted in scope than an Appellate Courts review of a Trial Courts decision;

c) The District Courts review of the arbitration decision will be governed by the same standards that an Appellate Court would review a Trial Courts decision but will also take into account whether the arbitration decision violated an established public policy.

d) The District Courts review of the arbitration decision will be more restricted in scope than an Appellate Courts review of a Trial Courts decision and will only set aside the decision if the arbitration was involuntary by Mary Brown and/or Doctor Haney

STARBOAK MAGAZINE is a popular magazine in the United States that focuses on cases of crime, public figures, politicians, actors and freedom of speech lawsuits. Actor Tom Cruise discovers that on November 1, 2020, STARBOAK MAGAZINE distributed a written story in the magazine to prescribers of the magazine, stating that Tom Cruise was being charged for embezzlement, alleging that Tom Cruise embezzled money from his familys estate and misused those funds for his personal benefit. STARBOAK MAGAZINE writes that Tom Cruise is being criminally charged for embezzlement of his familys estate. The story is distributed to 100,000 prescribers of the magazine. Tom Cruise is furious and the story is completely false. Tom Cruise sues STARBOAK MAGAZINE for defamation and the following is true regarding the lawsuit of Tom Cruise (Plaintiff) vs. STARBOAK MAGAZINE (Defendant):

a) Tom Cruise must only prove that the story written by STARBOAK MAGAZINE was false and intended to harm his reputation; that the story was published as slander; and that the story was published to third parties causing damages to Tom Cruises reputation.

b) Tom Cruise must only prove that the story written by STARBOAK MAGAZINE was false and that the story was published as libel; and that the story was published to third parties causing damages to his reputation.

c) Tom Cruise must only prove that the story written by STARBOAK MAGAZINE was false and intended to harm his reputation; that the story was published as libel; that the story was published to third parties and that STARBOAK MAGAZINE committed actual malice causing Tom Cruise damages to his reputation

Sally Burst works for OFFICE DEPO SUPPLIES as an employee working as a cashier. There are 10 employees as cashiers and Sally is good friends with co-employees Randy, Spencer and Tiffany. Sally does not like one of her co-workers Brandon Bow. Sally tells her co-workers Randy, Spencer and Tiffany that Brandon Bow stole $500.00 from OFFICE DEPO SUPPLIES and is going to get fired once OFFICE DEPO SUPPLIES finds out.Randy, Spencer and Tiffany tell Brandon Bow what Sally has told them. Randy is upset and files a defamation lawsuit against Sally Burst for defaming his reputation. The following is true:

a) Brandon Bow must demonstrate that the libel statement by Sally was made with malice and intended to harm Brandons reputation;

b) The statement made by Sally to Randy, Spencer and Tiffany is actionable with no proof of special damages required;

c) The slanderous statement by Sally is actionable but Brandon must prove his reputation was harmed whether intentionally by Sally or non-intentionally by Sally and that damages should be awarded;

d) The libelous statement by Sally was negligent because Sally knew the statement was false even if she did not intend to harm Brandons reputation;

15. Justin Mayneer is an attorney representing client Carol Roberts in a divorce matter. Carol Roberts has filed for divorce against her husband Kevin Roberts. Kevin Roberts has his own attorney, named Jerry Scribson. Trial is set before the Judge. Carol and Kevin Roberts have two daughters, Ashley Roberts (age 10) and Amy Roberts (age 8).At the trial, Attorney Justin Mayneer argues on behalf of Carol Robertsalleging to the Court that husband Kevin Roberts physically abused their daughter Amy Roberts (age 8). Carol Roberts testifies that during the marriage, Kevin Roberts hit child Amy Roberts on her arm three times during an argument, causing Amy to have several bruises on her arm.In opposition, Kevin Roberts testifies that he never hit his daughter Amy.The Judge listens to the evidence and rules that there is insufficientevidence to prove that Kevin Roberts hit his daughter Amy. Thus, the Court granted custody of the daughters to Kevin Roberts.After the divorce trial, Kevin Roberts sues Carols attorney Justin Mayneer for alleging in Court that Kevin hit his daughter Amy, defaming Kevins reputation. The following is true:

a) Attorney Justin Mayneer cannot be successfully sued for defamation because the allegation of abuse against Kevin Roberts at the divorce trial was only made to the Court and does not qualify as publication to third parties and that Justin Mayneer did not intend to harm Kevins reputation.

b) Attorney Justin Mayneer cannot be successfully sued for defamation because the allegation of abuse against Kevin Roberts at the divorce trial does not qualify as publication to third parties, because divorce cases are considered private in nature and not open to the public. In addition, Justin Mayneer did not intend to harm Kevins reputation.

c) Attorney Justin Mayneer cannot be successfully sued for defamation because he is protected by an absolute privilege for statements made in Court proceedings.

d) Attorney Justin Mayneer cannot be successfully sued for defamation because he is protected by a qualified privilege because he is an attorney and the statement was made in Court

16. Matthew Morbis is 21 years old, wealthy, and decides he wants to purchase a home in Orem, Utah that is for sale for $300,000.00. Matthew schedules a tour of the home with the owner Dave Downer. On April 1, 2020, Matthew takes a tour of the home with the owner Dave Downer. During the tour, Matthew asks Dave Downer if the foundation of the home is stable or if it is sinking?? Matthew has suspicions that the foundation of the home might be sinking because it is located on a sloping hill. Owner Dave Downer secretly knows the foundation is sinking but tells Matthew that there is nothing wrong with the foundation.Matthew then asks Dave Downer if he can have his friend who works in construction, Barry Bonus, inspect the home foundation to see if the foundation is sinking. Dave Downer agrees, hoping Matthew and Barry Bonus wont be able to discover the foundation of the home is sinking.After Barry Bonus inspects the foundation of the home, he discovers that the foundation of the home is sinking. Barry Bonus shows Matthew where the foundation is sinking.Matthew confronts owner Dave Downer and tells Dave Downer that he lied about the foundation. Owner Dave Downer breaks down and admits to Matthew that he lied about the foundation. Matthew decides not to purchase the home. Matthew subsequently sues owner Dave Downer for fraud, alleging that Dave Downer committed fraud by misrepresenting a material fact regarding the home. The case is set to be tried before a Jury. At trial, Dave Downer testifies to the Jury that he did not know the foundation was sinking and that he did not lie to Matthew.Matthew testifies to the Jury that owner Dave Downer told him the foundation was not sinking and lied about it.

Barry Bonus testifies also and tells the Jury that he inspected the foundation of Dave Downers home and that the foundation was sinking.Will Matthew be successful at trial alleging fraud against home owner Dave Downer and requesting damages of $20,000 for the fraud?

a) YES

b) NO

c) YES, but the Jury could award a lower amount of damages, such as $10,000 in damages.

d) YES because Dave made an intentional misrepresentation of material factregarding the foundation of the home to Matthew