use my last irac on contracts:

IRAC Torts Moss Insulation Co (MIC) was a subcontractor on an expansion project at the Luong manufacturing plant in Lowville, New York which is a remote part of upstate New York approximately 40 miles from the nearest population centers. Given the remoteness of the work site, MIC provided $30 per day in subsistence pay to each of its employees to defer part of the cost of a motel room or apartment in the nearest towns. MIC did not require its employees to spend the money on lodging. The employees were free to spend it or not spend it as they saw fit. In fact the President of MIC, Amara Moss, would tell her employees, \"if | were you, I'd pocket the money and commute! It isn't taxable income, it's like free money!\" Benji Wittman, an MIC employee was assigned to work on the expansion project in Lowville and he received the $30 per day subsistence pay from MIC but he elected to make the commute to the plant from his home in Rochester, NY which was 120 miles from the work site. Beniji, a resourceful young man, convinced a few other co-workers along the route to carpool to save additional money. The parties would share the driving responsibilities. The work schedule was Monday through Friday 7am to 5:30pm with a half hour for lunch and few if any breaks. In addition to his employment with MIC, Benji also worked as a local DJ at various night clubs. Benji completed his regular shift at the plant on a Tuesday and returned to Rochester at 8:30pm. He then worked his second job before going to bed around midnight. Benji then rose at 4:00am on Wednesday to get his vehicle and collect his co-workers for the daily commute to the plant, where he worked his normal shift. The car pool with Benji driving left the plant around 6:00am. Shortly thereafter, Benji fell asleep at the wheel. His vehicle crossed the centerline of the highway and collided head-on with a vehicle in which Duong Wang was the passenger. Duong expired in the accident and his widow, Ruixia Zheng, acting on her own right and as a personal representative of her late husband's estate, filed a negligence-based wrongful death action against Wittman and MIC in a New York State Court. The lawsuit filed by Zheng claimed that MIC owed a duty of care to the other travelers on the highway to prevent injury caused by employees who had become exhausted after being required to commute long distances and work long hours and were even encouraged to do so with the $30 per day stipend. She contended in her complaint that MIC breached its duty by \"failing to take precautionary measures to prevent employees from becoming so exhausted that they pose a threat of harm to the traveling public and failing to provide alternative transportation to its exhausted employees or in the alternative, failing to provide living quarters to its employees within a reasonable from the plant site. Discuss the legal theory put forth by Ms. Zheng based on the various theories of negligence discussed in class. Using the IRAC format conclude on the likelihood of success of this lawsuit. Isabella Odjourian 4/1/24 IRAC 2 - Contracts Issue: This case raises the 1ssue of whether there is a valid and enforceable contract between Dorothy and Samuel regarding the lease of the property, including the disputed basement area. Rule of Law: A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between parties in which promises are made or a promise is traded for an act, and its foundation is based on the principles described in the Uniform Commercial Code. The issue between Deng and Turecamo rests around contractual duties, namely real estate leasing. The major question is about the contract's validity, which is determined by six key elements: legal offer, legal acceptance, consideration, real assent, competent parties, and legal aims. To demonstrate the contract's legality, it must be assessed if both parties had a clear purpose to engage into the agreement, with the offeree fully aware of the subject matter, price, and products provided. Legal acceptance involves correct methods of showing acceptance while sticking to the mirror image rule, while exceptions specified in the textbook (Petosa 2024) allow for extra terms without forming a counteroffer if specific criteria are satisfied. Consideration emphasizes the mutual commitments made in the contract, guaranteeing that each party accepts duties to which they are not already legally committed, whether the debt is liquidated or unliquidated. Furthermore, real assent is required, free of fraud, errors, or undue influence, and both parties must be able to grasp the nature of the transaction. Legal objectivity requires that the contract comply with statute and case law, making it legal and enforceable. In contrast, illegal contracts are considered voidable. n the case of a breach, emphasis is focused on nonperformance of contractual responsibilities and breaches of contractual provisions. Application: The primary controversy at stake 1s determining whether Deng and Turecame had a legitimate contract. Examining the basic aspects of a contract reveals that the standards for legal offer and acceptance appear to have been satisfied, as both parties shown desire to enter into a contractual agreement, but with some deviation from the typical "mirror image rule." Lauren's contract changes, such as the addition of basement usage and appliance arrangements, stray from usual procedure. However, Deng gave himself entire liberty to negotiate these conditions, creating an atmosphere favorable to mutual satisfaction. Consideration, an essential component of any contract, appears to have been exchanged, with Deng leasing her home to Turecame in exchange for monetary recompense. Notably, this transaction was free of any evidence of threat, coercion, or fraud, assuring its legitimacy. Furthermore, there were no charges of intoxication or insanity, therefore both parties had the necessary competence to understand the agreements. From a legal sense, the contract does not violate any statutes or case law, showing that it meets the required aim. However, the main difficulty is the application of the mirror image rule and the varying interpretations of contractual terms, particularly basement use. Furthermore, essential clauses such as landlord rights and temperature control were either partially handled or completely removed potentially resulting to disputes and practical issues. The lack of clarity in these areas makes the lease agreement more difficult to enforce and last longer. Conclusion: After extensively evaluating the circumstances surrounding Deng and Turecama's contract, it is clear that the court may declare it void due to the presence of a mutual agreement with different conditions. This result stems from a thorough examination of the contractual dynamics and is consistent with the legal rules regulating contract creation