From an actual lawsuit: "Back in 2009, Jesse Dimmick was fleeing from the police in a stolen car on murder charges he faced in Colorado. He made it as far as Kansas (which is impressive!), but it was at that point, he decided it would be a good idea to find a place to hide. That place turned out to be the home of Jared and Lindsay Rowley, a newlywed couple. Dimmick reportedly entered the Rowleys home brandishing a knife. The Rowleys were frightened, but were apparently able to gain Dimmicks trust by offering him Cheetos and Dr. Pepper and watching a movie with him. You cant complain about a cheap date. The couple escaped after Dimmick fell asleep, and of course, they decided to sue him. Theyre seeking more than $75,000 in their suit for trespass, negligent infliction of emotion distress, and other things. But heres the kicker Dimmick is countersuing. What for? After the Rowleys contacted the police, an officers gun was accidentally discharged during the arrest, and Dimmick was shot in the back. Dimmick blames the Rowleys. The Topeka Capital-Journal (Links to an external site.) has more: Jesse Dimmick Dimmick filed a response Oct. 21 seeking to have the Rowleys claim dismissed and stating a counterclaim for breach of contract seeking $160,000 to cover hospital bills and $75,000 for pain and suffering. Dimmicks response said he was representing himself without the aid of proffessional (sic) legal counsel. He wrote that after he entered the Rowleys home, I told them that I was being pursuid (sic) by a person, or persons, who appeared to be police officers, who were trying to kill me. He added: I, the defendant, asked the Rowleys to hide me because I feared for my life. I offered the Rowleys an unspecified amount of money which they agreed upon, therefore forging a legally binding oral contract.

Is there a viable cause of action for breach of contract? There are at least 2 concepts you have read about that are in play. Find those concepts, discuss how they apply to these facts and come to a conclusion about whether he has a valid claim.

business law