Find five (5) criminal or civil cases that have caught your interest. They can be from any country. Ideally the cases should have occurred in the past ten (10) years but older cases may be used if necessary. These cases must relate to civil (tort) or criminal cases and must have been decided in court.They should not be ongoing cases.

1. a synopsis of each case-title, background, location, parties involved, etc.
2. the points of law from your study in the course that the case is addressing:
3. What facts are presented in the case?
4. What ruling was made?
5. What were the reasons for such ruling?
6. Do you agree/disagree with the ruling? State why or why not.
7. Add the reference or link to where you got the information from

See attached doc as a guide to help.

University College of the Cayman Islands SUMMER 2021 BUS 205 Business Law Sample Case for Cases Review Assignment Liebeck vs McDonald's Restaurants (McDonald's Hot Coffee Case) . Synopsis Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman, purchased a cup of coffee at a McDonald's drive-thru in Albuquerque and spilled it on her lap. She sued Mcdonald's and a jury awarded her around $3 million in punitive damages for the burns she suffered from. . Characters Stella Liebeck & McDonald's Restaurant What facts are presented in the case? Liebeck was at the drive thru of Mcdonald's when the coffee was spilled onto her lap causing her to suffer from bums in the groin and on her upper legs. McDonald's coffee is hotter than the standard cup of coffee. . What ruling was made? The court ruled in favour of Liebeck who was compensated $160,000 instead of getting $200,000 because a minimal percentage of the accident was her own liability. The case was continued where she was rewarded $2.7 million dollars in all for the punitive damages caused to her from the extent of the heat from the coffee that was spilt on her lap. What were the reasons for such ruling? Due to the facts stated above, McDonald's coffee had a moderately higher temperature than the average cup of coffee. . Do you agree/disagree with the ruling? State why or why not. I agree with this ruling because coffee is not to be served to customers once it exceeds a certain temperature. Like what happened to Liebeck will have the same effect on other customers except that it will be their tongue or mouth that suffers from burns. The fact that the lady was at the drive-thru of Mcdonald's shows that she was still on the premises at the time that the incident occurred. This is an unintentional tort