Tom Creighton hired Destroy, Inc., a demolition company, to level an old building on a busy downtown lot. Destroy, Inc. was given full rein to decide on the amount of explosives needed and the placement of the charges. Security for the site on the day of the explosion was contracted out to a private security firm. When the appointed day arrived, the building was brought down. However, the building fell in a slightly different direction than that anticipated by Destroy, Inc. Numerous pieces of adjoining property, both real and personal, were severely damaged. Creighton claims that the use of an independent contractor such as Destroy, Inc. has insulated him from liability. How do you respond to Creighton's claim?

Barnes agrees with Morgan to enter into the management of a new subdivision of residential housing. Morgan appoints Barnes as his manager for the duration of the development program. During the course of the construction, Barnes decides to use funds specified for the subdivision for an office space project that Barnes alone has been interested in completing. Morgan is very angry on learning of Barnes' actions and terminates the agency. Barnes insists that the agency cannot be terminated in this manner. Is Barnes correct?

A professor knew a colleague who was quite ill. The professor applied for life insurance on the colleague's life and named himself as beneficiary. Because of a similarity in the names of the professor and the colleague, an error was made and the policy was issued.

The professor also sold his car to a student. When the student drove away, it was clear that the student was an extremely reckless driver. The professor decided not to cancel his property insurance policy that he had maintained on the vehicle that he sold to the student. Shortly thereafter, the colleague died and the student demolished the car. The professor applied for insurance benefits under both policies and each of the insurers resisted payment. Decide both cases.

Joe Swartz, an employee of Acme Company, worked for months during company time and used Acme's equipment to develop an idea that he had been nurturing. Finally, the idea came to fruition. Swartz's employer laid claim to the invention on the grounds that the firm's equipment had been utilized on company time. Swartz had obtained a patent on the invention and claimed that his employer had no rights to the invention at all. Who is right? How could an employer guard against such arguments in the future?

Bud is unable to obtain a loan without some form of additional reassurances. Bud comes to you for assistance. You are willing to help Bud, but you wish to protect yourself from liability as much as possible. Would you prefer a surety or a guaranty? The bank issuing the loan also wishes to protect itself as much as possible. Would the bank prefer a surety or guaranty? If your oral assurances are enough to solidify the loan, has a surety or guaranty been formed?