Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

The law firm of Traystman, Coric and Keramidas represented Andrew Daigle in a divorce in Norwich, Connecticut. Scott McGowan, an attorney with the firm, handled

image text in transcribedimage text in transcribedimage text in transcribed

The law firm of Traystman, Coric and Keramidas represented Andrew Daigle in a divorce in Norwich, Connecticut. Scott McGowan, an attorney with the firm, handled the two-day trial. After the first day of the trial, McGowan told Daigle to sign a promissory note in the amount of $26,973, which represented the amount that Daigle then owed to the firm, or McGowan would withdraw from the case, and Daigle would be forced to get another attorney or to continue the trial by himself. Daigle said that he wanted another attorney, Martin Rutchik, to see the note. McGowan urged Daigle to sign it and assured him that a copy would be sent to Rutchik. Feeling that he had no other choice, Daigle signed the note. When he did not pay, the law firm filed a suit in a Connecticut state court against him. Daigle asserted that the note was unenforceable because he had signed it under duress.

image text in transcribedimage text in transcribedimage text in transcribed
QUESTION 7 The fact that Traystman, Coric and Keramidas were Daigle's lawyers, Daigle might also try to argue that he can avoid paying the note based upon since the law firm owes Daigle v in its dealings with Daigle.QUESTION 7 The fact that Traystman, Coric and Keramidas were Daigle's lawyers, Daigle might also try to argue that he can avoid paying the note based upor since the law firm owes Daigle v in its dealings with Daigle. no duty to speak undue influence mutual mistake of fact Q an arm's length transaction duty a fiduciary duty If the no duty sign the note because his wife had filed criminal charges against him for spousal abuse and he Woul jail. when in fact this was false. Daigle might have an additional defense ofQUESTION 7 10 po The fact that Traystman, Coric and Keramidas were Daigle's lawyers, Daigle might also try to argue that he can avoid paying the note based upon since the law firm owes Daigle v n its dealings with Daigle. no duty to speak undue influence mutual mistake of fact QUESTION 8 an arm's length transaction duty 10 po a fiduciary duty If the law firm had told Daigle that he should sign the note because his wif no duty for spousal abuse and he would need to pay the firm to avoid going to jail. when in fact this was fals. se of

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

Step: 1

blur-text-image

Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions

See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success

Step: 2

blur-text-image

Step: 3

blur-text-image

Ace Your Homework with AI

Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance

Get Started

Recommended Textbook for

Public Law Text Cases And Materials

Authors: Andrew Le Sueur, Maurice Sunkin, Jo Eric Khushal Murkens

4th Edition

0198820283, 978-0198820284

More Books

Students also viewed these Law questions