Involuntary Restraint Problem

Assume that you are an attorney who represents Freda Ford in a suit for false imprisonment brought by her, a twentyone year old student, Freda Ford, against Thrifty Repair Shop.

Freda brought her VW bug into Thrifty Repair for its 500,000 mile checkup. Freda told the manager of Thrifty to do whatever they needed to do to get her trusty vehicle running like new. Freda assumed that it only needed to be tunedup - spark plugs, check the belts, etc., which she thought would cost about fifty dollars. When Freda returned the next day to pick up her car, Thrifty had replaced the engine and the transmission. The car now ran like new, but the price for the repairs was $3000.00.

Freda was flabbergasted. She only had fifty dollars on her person and another fifty dollars in the bank. She explained this to the manager and asked if she could work out a payment plan. This did not sit well with the manager who exploded and went on a profanitylaced rant about irresponsible kids. This brought the attention of five overallwearing, oilcovered Thrifty mechanics who surrounded Freda and in unison chanted, "we want our money." Freda felt very afraid. The manager would not consider a payment plan, but rather stood between Freda and the VW, all the while repeating loudly that she was in legal trouble, and that they did not let customers leave who did not first pay the repair bill.

This standoff lasted about twenty minutes. The manager continued to yell and the other employees continued to appear menacing, at least to Freda. Finally, Freda, being young and nimble, made a break for the door. The employees, all over forty years old, could not catch her. So, as it now stands, Thrifty still has the car and Freda has a plan to redeem it. She has brought a suit for false imprisonment and has asked for $3000.00 in damages, plus attorney's fees.

The court has asked for pretrial briefs from both parties that argue the merits of their positions. The case will be decided on whether Freda was involuntarily restrained. Use the IRAAC format to argue as the attorney for Freda, using Hoffman v. Clinic Hospital, 197 S.E. 161 (N.C. 1938), which is attached, to define the rule and to use for analogous reasoning. The court has defined the Issue: whether Freda was involuntarily restrained.Use a complete IRAAC format in support of the position that Freda was involuntarily restrained.

Here are some things to keep in mind for this assignment:

• Issue: The issue has been provided. Please use it exactly as is.
• Rule: you must brief the Hoffmancase in order to find the rule and use it as the rulein your IRAAC
• Analogous Case:You must usethe Hoffmancase as the analogous case (A₁section)
• Argument/Application: The argument (A₂section) consists of comparing the facts of the Freda case with facts ofHoffman. If you want the same holding asHoffman, you must argue thatthe Freda Ford facts aresimilarenough to get the same holding. If you want the opposite holding fromHoffman, you distinguish Freda facts from theHoffman casefacts.
• Conclusion:Give the conclusion - just the bare bones and then add a few Freda facts as support.
• * Involuntary Restraint is NOT the same as False Imprisonment - although there is some overlap. The court only wants you to argue the issue of involuntary restraint - do NOT mention false imprisonment in your IRAAC.*