Case Study John Harrington, Jr. (\"Junior\") is a 24-year-old, 3-pack-per-day smoker. John Harrington, Sr. (\"Senior\") is a very concerned parent. On January 1, father announces to son, \"Junior, if you will stop smoking for the entire year, I will pay you $5,000.\" Senior believes that if Junior will stop smoking for one year, he will \"kick the habit.\" Junior reluctantly accepts his father's terms, and extinguishes his half-smoked cigarette with the heel of his boot. On January 1 of the following year, Junior approaches Senior and says \"Dad, time to pay up.\" Senior has no reason to doubt that Junior has refrained from smoking for an entire year, but states, \"Son, this was for your benefit. The gift I have given you is the gift of life, and you are now likely to enjoy that gift longer, because you are now much less likely to contract cancer. Health statistics show that non-smokers live ten years longer than smokers. Enjoy your newfound life, but I will not pay you the $5,000.\" Does Senior owe Junior the $5,000? Is there an enforceable contract between father and son? If there is not an enforceable contract, does Junior have any other legal or equitable theory of recovery? Is Senior ethically obligated to pay Junior the $5,000? Tommy McCartney is a sixteen-year-old high school student. He has worked forty hours per week at the local convenience store over the last year, and has diligently saved $6,000 for the purchase of his first car. While visiting a local car dealership, Tommy finds the \"car of his dreams,\" a used yellow Camaro. Tommy walks into the dealership, announces to the dealership owner that he is \"ready to buy,\" negotiates $6,000 as the purchase price, and leaves the dealership a proud car owner. Over the course of the next six months, Tommy drives the Camaro eight thousand miles, wears the tires thin, dents the left front fender, and regrets his purchase. He realizes that in two short years college will beckon, and he knows that his parents cannot afford to pay for his higher education. In short, he wants his money back. On a Saturday morning, Tommy returns to the car dealership, walks into the sales office, and hands the keys to the seller, asking for the return of his $6,000. The dealer chuckles, and then his look turns stern, saying \"Son, I don't owe you anything. You've just learned a lesson in the 'School of Hard Knocks.' The car is still yours, and the money is still mine!\" Who will prevail? Is it legal and/or ethical to allow Tommy to escape his contractual obligations? For both cases I want you to Identified: Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant). Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns. Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties). Provide a judgment on who should win the case - be clear. Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law. Be prepared to defend your decision and to objectively evaluate the other points of view. Write your answers in a word document in black, times new roman as a font. This Homework is worth 20 and to earn the possible points you need to follow the answer guidelines. The deadline for this homework will be November 2nd at 9:00 P.M