Q. 21 Charlie, an employee at Paddy's Craft Brewery and Pub, was injured at work by a beer bottle explosion. Charlie sued, among others, Weiss Engineering, which provided faulty sterilization equipment purchased by Paddy's. In their negotiation to complete the sale of said equipment, BOTH Weiss and Paddy's included boilerplate in their respective contracts requiring the other party to indemnify it if such an accident occurred. Weiss argued that they were not responsible for Charlie's injuries, as Paddy's had indemnified Weiss. Is Weiss right?

Select one:

a. No, since Weiss and Paddy's are both merchants, there is a contract and all agreed upon terms must be read together. Here both parties must indemnify each other, which creates an endless loop of indemnification that the courts will resolve under the parol evidence rule in Paddy's favor.

b. No, since Weiss and Paddy's are both merchants, there is a contract, but conflicting terms (such as the two indemnification clauses) are knocked out.

c. No, since the proposed contracts had different terms, there is no contract due to the mirror image rule.

d. Yes.

Grace and William do business as Final Curtain Decorators. In most states, this partnership would be treated as

Select one:

a. A non-entity for the purposes of holding title to property but an aggregate of the individual partners' for federal income tax purposes

b. An aggregate of the individual partners for the purposes of holding title to property but a natural person for federal income tax purposes

c. An individual entity for the purposes of holding title to property but an aggregate of the individual partners for federal income tax purposes

d. An individual entity for the purposes of holding title to property but a natural person for federal income tax purposes

Which of the following is generally NOT a factor in determining if an employee was acting within the scope of employment?

Select one

:a. Was the employee disobeying the instructions of the employer when the tort was committed?

b. Was the instrumentality of the injury furnished by the employer?

c. Did the employer authorize the employee to use the instrumentality of the injury?

d. Was the employee carrying on the employer's business when the tort was committed?