Instruction(s): Please respond to the following two questions based on the hypothetical, using no more than 500 words per answer. Each question is worth 50 points and will be graded according to the rubric on the following page. Use the IRAC format. Please email your answer in a word document (not a .pdf or the text of an email). Make sure to give the best arguments for both sidesof the issue. Remember: there is no correct ultimate answer and I care much more about your ability to give me the best arguments for both sides. Please limit your discussion the facts as given in the hypothetical: don't discuss or assume additional facts. Please do not to rely on any outside legal research beyond what we learned in class, and the textbook.

***

Garret and Kay's Really Tremendous Oil Company (GKRTOC) ships oil in tankers. The tankers sail from Alaska to California. Two years ago, GKRTOC hired Professor Haas as captain of one of its tankers, the Officer John Express. GKRTOC did not subject Professor Haas to any medical examination before hiring him, or at any time during the period of his employment.

One night last year, Professor Haas consumed a single glass of wine at a party aboard the Officer John Express during one of its voyages. It was the first time Professor Haas ever drank, because he is a man of temperance, and he became unexpectedly intoxicated. Professor Haas then went to the bridge to pilot the ship. Unbeknownst to Professor Haas, his first mate, Paril, had spiked his drink with sleeping pills. An hour later, the ship struck an invisible iceberg below the waters' surface, which caused the ship to run around and spill all of the oil. Professor Haas was found asleep at the wheel of the ship with three empty beer bottles laying on the floor beneath him.

The oil washed ashore and damaged all of the boats owned by Gabrielle and Mecca's Neat Wildlife Safari Company (GMNWSF), and they lost $10,000.

An applicable law states:

"It is illegal to consume alcohol onboard oil tankers."

Gabrielle and Mecca have sued GKRTOC and Professor Haas.

Question 1. Will Gabrielle and Mecca be successful in a negligenceclaim against Professor Haas? Will Gabrielle and Mecca be successful in a negligenceclaim against GKRTOC? Will Gabrielle and Mecca be successful in a strict liabilityclaim against GKRTOC?

****(the below facts onlyhave to do with question 2. Do not discuss them on question 1) ****

A few months later, the GKROTC is back in business. They have fired the lush Professor Haas and replaced him with Captain Carina. Captain Carina is also the GKROTC business manager. One day, she is playing tennis with with Paul, who runs a local oil refinery when he is not playing professional tennis, and is one of the GKRTOC's customers. Carina laughs at him and tells Paul that if he wins the next set, she will give him a year's supply of oil for free (it would normally cost $50,000). Paul says, "okay!" They don't write anything down. Paul whoops Carina at tennis. Paul then laughs at her and says, "Gee, I can't wait for all that free oil!" Carina is confused and doesn't intend to actually give Paul any free oil.

After tennis, Carina and Paul are having lunch. Paul feels bad for Carina, so he decides to sell her his brand new Mercedes for a real bargain. He writes on a napkin, "I agree to sell my Mercedes to Carina for a price of $10," and signs it. He slides the napkin across the table and seriously says, "Carina, I'd like to sell you my Mercedes. Would you sign this contract?" Carina is very happy, and signs the napkin. They leave the restaurant. On the way home, Paul discovers he actually likes his Mercedes quite a lot, and calls Carina. He tells her he doesn't want to sell her the Mercedes anymore, and won't give it to her.

A month later, Carina still refuses to give Paul any oil, and Paul refuses to give Carina the Mercedes. They sue each other.

Question 2. Is there a valid contract between Paul and Carina for a year supply of free oil? Is there a valid contract between Paul and Carina for the sale of Paul's Mercedes?

Rubric

Objective	Needs Improvement	Average	Excellent
Understanding the law (8 pts)	The law is substantially misstated.	The law is essentially correct, although it may be stated in an unclear manner or with minor errors.	The law is stated in a clear and correct manner.
Application(most important) (9 pts)	The applicable facts are not mentioned or the facts are not matched to the appropriate rule. Reasons/arguments supporting the application of the law are not provided. Note: Students will not be penalized for arriving at the wrong conclusion provided their arguments are well-supported and persuasive.	There are a few facts omitted or not applied to the appropriate rule. Reasons/arguments supporting the application of the law are only partially provided. Note: Students will not be penalized for arriving at the wrong conclusion provided their arguments are well-supported and persuasive.	The applicable facts have been applied to the appropriate rule. Reasons/arguments supporting the application of the law are provided. Note: Students will not be penalized for arriving at the wrong conclusion provided their arguments are well-supported and persuasive.
Writing Clarity & IRAC (8 pts)	There are numerous typos, grammatical errors or incorrect word usage. Student does not use the IRAC format when asked to.	There are a few typos, grammatical errors or incorrect word usages, but not so many as to make the response difficult to read. Student does not use the IRAC format when asked to.	There are no typos, grammatical errors, or incorrect word usage. Student uses the IRAC format.