Question 1

Marilyn and Thomas Cooke own a semi-detached property.They have one year old twins, Timothy and Tina. The Cookes are angry at their neighbour, Oscar Crouch, who occupies the other side of the semi-detached property.For the past three or four weeks Oscar has been playing his television at top volume preventing the twins from sleeping. Thomas tried to talk to Oscar about it a couple of times, but Oscar did not answer his door when Thomas knocked.Thomas thinks Oscar has been avoiding him.

Marilyn believes that Oscar is a heavy drinker because she often sees him stacking crates of empty beer and wine bottles in his garage.One afternoon, Marilyn was taking the twins to the local park to meet mothers from her mothers' group when she saw Oscar lurch unsteadily out of his house and down the steps, get in his car, and drive off. At the park down the street Marilyn told two of the mothers in the group, Amelia Evans and Lois Clarke, that Oscar is a big drinker who regularly drives under the influence of alcohol.Amelia and Lois encouraged Marilyn to call the police the next time she saw anything suspicious.

Three days later Marilyn saw Oscar stumble down his steps and lurch down the path to his garage.She called his name, but Oscar just got in his car and drove away. Marilyn decided to call 911 to report Oscar as an impaired driver.She gave the 911 operator Oscar's licence plate number.

Constable Joanne Kerr happened to be driving behind a rather slow-moving vehicle when she heard the dispatcher's report of the call and noticed that the licence plate of the car in front of her was a match.She followed the vehicle for two blocks and then had the driver of the vehicle pull over.A breathalyzer test was administered, but according to the roadside breathalyzer results Oscar was not impaired by alcohol. However, during roadside sobriety testing Oscar was unable to walk in a straight line.He also gave the officer answers that did not always relate to the questions the officer had asked. Constable Kerr believed Oscar to be impaired by drugs.As a result, he was charged with impaired driving and was taken to the police station for further testing.After additional testing Oscar was released and charges were withdrawn. Oscar was able to satisfy Constable Kerr that his unsteadiness was a result of an ear infection for which he had been prescribed medication. In fact, when he was stopped by Constable Kerr Oscar was on his way to his doctor's office to have his ear checked because he did not feel the medication he had been prescribed was working. Oscar's doctor, given permission by her patient, confirmed to police that the ear infection of three weeks' duration had affected both Oscar's hearing and his balance. She further confirmed that the ear drops she had prescribed would not have impaired Oscar's ability to drive.

It turns out that Oscar's granddaughter had asked Oscar to collect empty bottles of beer, liquor, and wine for a bottle drive to benefit her baseball team.Oscar had been diligently collecting empty bottles from all his friends and stacking them in his garage.

a)Identify two torts that may apply in these circumstances which may give Oscar grounds to raise a civil suit, and test the elements of those torts against the scenario to determine whether an action based on either tort is likely to succeed. Provide reasons for your answer, with proper reference to the fact situation and the law.

Question 2

Lazlo purchased a Samsung S7 smartphone from a local Toronto retailer in 2019. Initially, he was very happy with the phones' performance, including the convenience of its extended battery life. This satisfaction ended abruptly, however, when Lazlo notice his pocket warming up, and upon pulling his phone out to investigate, felt it explode and catch fire in his hands. Lazlo was driving a vehicle at the same time so he quickly pulled over and tried throwing the phone out the car window. He did not initially succeed because, to his horror, the burning phone had stuck to the flesh of his hand. In great pain, Lazlo then drove himself to the hospital. There, doctors confirmed that the explosion had caused severe burns to Lazlo's hands and wrists. Lazlo had to take several months off work to recover.

When Lazlo first purchased his S7 smartphone (S7), he considered it to be a safe product which reviewed well. However, Samsung's Galaxy Note7 had the opposite reputation - it was actually considered to be dangerous. Indeed, the Note 7 had been made subject to a product recall around the time of Lazlo's purchase because its defective battery system caused short-circuiting, leading the phones to sometimes burst into flames. Infact, the Note 7s were considered such a menace that they were banned on Canadian and US airlines - both in the cabin itself and in checked luggage. Samsung offered refunds or replacement phones but class actions against Samsung in relation to Note7 have still been proposed in the United States and Canada, for example.

Lazlo wondered if the S7 was being afflicted by the same battery problem as the Note7 and his internet search confirmed that several class actions had been commenced in the United States in relation to S7s catching fire and causing damage. The class actions allege that the S7 devices, along with several other Samsung models, are defective because they can overheat and explode. Lazlo is very relieved to have found a Canadian law firm that is pursuing a proposed class action against Samsung in relation to the S7 and Note7 as well as other Samsung models, and he would like to join it. But whether alone or as part of a class action, Lazlo wants to recover damages from Samsung for the terrible pain he suffered from being severely burned, his loss of income while he was off work, and the fact that one hand suffers from numbness that could well be permanent.

Applying the relevant and correct principle(s) of law discuss the following questions:

a) Explain the most applicable tort Samsung may have committed in relation to its S7 product

b) Discuss what Lazlo have to prove in order to establish that tort and the defence(s) (if any) open to Samsung in this action? Test the elements of the tort identified against the scenario to determine whether an action based on the tort is likely to succeed. Provide reasons for your answer, with proper reference to the fact situation and the law.

Question 3

Amritha Singh is a middle manager with Coaster Plus Ltd (Coasters), a company that designs and manufactures roller coasters for amusement parks across North America. She has been appointed one of the project managers for the design and delivery of a special roller coaster for the Ultimate Park Ltd, an American customer. A major component of the project is the steel tracking, and one possible source is Trackers Canada Ltd (Trackers). Amritha's supervisor has asked her to negotiate the necessary contract. Amritha began negotiations with Jason Hughes. Jason is a representative of Trackers, the steel tracking manufacturer willing to supply tracking to Coasters, Amritha's employer. Amritha provided Jason with the plans and specifications for the roller coaster, and they negotiated a number of points, including price, delivery dates, and tracking quality. A short time later, Jason offered to sell Coasters a total of 900 metres of track in accordance with the plans and specifications provided. Jason's offer contained, among other matter, the purchase price ($1.5 million), delivery date, terms of payment, insurance obligations concerning the track, and a series of warranties related to the quality and performance of the tracking to be supplied. There was also a clause, inserted at Amritha's express request, which required Trackers to pay $5000 to Coasters for every day it was late in delivering the tracking.

After renewing the offer several days, Amritha for several days, Amritha contacted Jason and said, "You drive a hard bargain, and there are aspects of your offer that I'm not entirely happy with. However, I accept your offer on behalf of my company. I'm looking forward to doing business with you."

Within a month, Trackers faced a 20% increase in manufacturing costs owing to an unexpected shortage in steel. Jason contacted Amritha to explain this development and worried aloud that without an agreement from Coasters to pay 20% more for the tracking, Trackers would be unable to make its delivery date. Amritha received instructions from her supervisor to agree to the increased purchase price in order to ensure timely delivery. Amritha communicated this news to Jason, who thanked her profusely for being so cooperative and understanding.

Jason kept his word and the tracking was delivered on time. However, Coasters has now determined that its profit margin on the American deal is lower than expected, and it is looking for ways to cut costs Amritha is told by her boss to let Jason know that Coasters will not be paying the 20% price increase and will remit payment only in the amount set out in the contract. Jason and Trackers are stunned by this development.

Applying the relevant principle(s) of contract law discuss the following questions:

a) Whether the negotiations between Jason and Amritha have legal consequences.

b) Discuss specific applicable ways by which each party mentioned above could have avoided the contract and as well as the implications of each way identified.

c) Discuss the consequences of the instruction of Amritha's boss to the effect that Coasters will not be paying the 20% price increase and will remit payment only in the amount set out in the contract.

Note: Application means you have to identify the correct legal concept, define it, enumerate the elements and then apply it to the fact scenario before drawing conclusion.