John Smith has referred us to a case from his friend, Joe Sampson. Joe's son, Dan Sampson, is an 18-year-old construction worker who lives with his parents. Shortly after he was employed, he bought a car. His father co-signed for the loan. Then Dan bought a $600 television for his room. After the warranty expired on the television, it stopped working. Dan took the set to Easy Eddie's Repair Shop to be fixed. When Dan left the television, Farley, the head bookkeeper at Easy Eddie's, required Dan to sign an agreement authorizing the repair shop to make whatever repairs might be necessary and obligating Dan to pay for any necessary repairs that were made. Eddie promised the television set would be ready to pick up by the end of the week.

On that Friday, Dan appeared at the repair shop to pick up his television. It was not ready. Dan came back the following Friday as well as the Friday after that but the television was still not ready. Dan became very upset at being put off and demanded that the television be returned to him at once. After a long discussion, Eddie, the owner, convinced Dan to leave the television and promised that it would be ready the following Wednesday.

This is an actual problem from the NALA Certified Paralegal Exam review packet.

On Wednesday, Dan came to the repair shop and learned that the television had been repaired. Eddie presented him with the repair invoice for $607.35. Dan was understandably upset that the shop would spend more to repair the television than it had originally cost. Eddie reminded Dan that he had signed a contract to pay for necessary repairs and told him to "take it or leave it." Dan was incensed. He stomped out of the shop without paying the invoice and without his television.

After brooding about the matter for several days, Dan and one of his friends parked near the repair shop (on the following Friday). Dan knew that the shop was busy on Fridays, and while all of the clerks were helping customers, Dan slipped into the back room. He found his television, took it out the backdoor, and put it in his friend's car. Dan and his friend then drove away.

On the following day, two police officers appeared at Dan's home with a search warrant. Dan's mother let them in the house. They found the television and arrested Dan for theft. He was released on his own recognizance. Dan's parents, Joe and Betty Sampson, have retained us to represent their son.

Answer the following question. You will be graded on your ability to identify which facts are relevant and state them concisely and accurately; identify the threshold or main legal issue and any secondary issue(s); identify the relevant legal authority and apply it to the facts and draw persuasive logical conclusions. Do not rely on any other authority or your knowledge of the law; only use what is given in the question. Your answer should be in the form of a memorandum to the attorney including the following: Facts/Issue(s), Discussion/Analysis, and Conclusion. Pay attention to clarity, composition, conciseness, and organization.

Draft a memorandum response to the Dan Sampson issue using the skills demonstrated in the example response and following the instructions provided in class.