written response to problem 5

For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.

One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.

For most problems you should be able to answer in a page or less, e.g. I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion.

the diner's profits, Hazel believed that she and Tammy were to split half of any profit. Hazel's intent, however, was not to transfer ownership of the business to Tammy until Hazel retired, whenever that might be. On Octo- ber 30, 2003, Tammy was injured when she slipped off a ladder and fell onto both knees. The diner's insurer, Cypress Insurance Company, paid Tammy temporary total disability benefits beginning in November 2003. On April 2, 2004, however, Cypress notified Tammy that 1t would refuse to pay her disability claim on the grounds that she was not an employee of the diner, but a co-owner. Under the diner's insurance policy with Cypress, if Tammy were an owner of the diner, she would not have been entitled to workers' compensation benefits because she did not notify Cypress that she elected to be included under the policy's coverage as a partner. Was Tammy a partner in the diner? Why or why not? 5. In August 2003, Tammy Duncan began working as a waitress at Bynum's Diner, which was owned by her mother, Hazel Bynum, and stepfather, Eddie Bynum. Tammy, Hazel, and Eddie signed an agreement stating the following: As of September 6, 2003, I, Eddie Bynum, lease Bynum's Diner to Hazel Bynum and Tammy Duncan for $800 a month. I am completely out of it for 6 months, at which time they (Hazel Bynum and Tammy) have the option of renewing this contract for another 6 months. They are responsible for all repairs, taxes, and expenses for Bynum's Diner. Tammy began doing paperwork and bookkeeping for the diner in addition to occasionally waiting tables and performing other duties. Tammy and Hazel's inten- tion in their agreement was to make Tammy a co-manager and not a co-owner of the business. Tammy understood that she would take over her stepfather's duties as man- ager. She received wages for the performance of her duties. Although Tammy had no agreement to share in