Instructions:. The law is all around you. Not only does it impact your day-to-day relationships and duties towards others, it invades your TV shows and movies! This assignment will spotlight those forms of entertainment by focusing your attention on their legal aspects. As you know, I love to use TV show and movie clips in class. But, my clips are stuck in the 70s and 80s. I need your help. Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is to identify 3 segments from either a TV show, movie, or commercial that illustrate 3 separate legal concepts we have talked about in class (in other words, each clip has to illustrate a different concept). If you are able to provide a hyperlink to the segment, please do so (no illegal downloading, of course). If you cannot, then please describe the situation in detail and give me an approximate time in the film or show for the clip (such as, \"20 minutes in\" or \"at the 15 minute mark\") After you identify the clip and its source, write a short paragraph describing the legal concept illustrated and how this clips fits into our discussion of that concept. Caveats: No criminal law (too easy); no simple contracts (such as someone buying a cup of coffee or someone signing a contract for the sale of a house); no legal films (such as Erin Brockovich, My Cousin Vinny, A Civil Action, The Verdict, The Paper Chase, any John Grisham films, etc.); no film or TV clips highlighted in legal education websites; and no clips used in class or referenced in the course material. Finally, the clip has to be something I could show in class. Mildly bad language is okay (strings of profanity are out...sorry to you Quentin Tarantino fans). Example: Gung Ho (1986). Link to clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSo45ZD29oo. In this clip, the contract negotiated contains a condition precedent. The contract promises are that the union workers will work and the company will restore their pay and guarantee full employment. But the company's promises need not be performed unless and until the workers produce 15,000 cars in a month. Production of the 15,000 cars is not a contract promise, but a condition precedent to be met prior to the company's obligation to perform becoming absolute. Otherwise, if the union had made a promise to produce the 15,000 cars/month, then failure to do so would be a breach of contract allowing the company to sue for damages. And that is clearly not the intent of the parties