In: Operations Management
7. Laurie goes for a jog and sees a poster on a telephone pole offering a reward for returning a lost puppy, Cocoa. Laurie finds Cocoa and returns the puppy to the owner. She asks for the reward, and the owner refuses, saying they don’t have a contract. Laurie angrily leaves and calls her brother, who is an attorney. Her brother says they do have a contract. Does Laurie have a contract? If so, how, and what parts of this fact pattern represent the various elements of that contract?
8. Luis and Maria Antonia go to a baseball game. During batting practice, one of the players hits a foul ball that hits Maria Antonia in the head. This happens because there is no netting at the stadium. If there was, Maria Antonia never would have been injured. Maria Antonia wants to make a tort claim against the team for her injury. What type of tort would this be and why? Please make sure to explain what Maria Antonia would have to prove for her claim to be successful. Also, if you were representing the team, what defense would you recommend against Maria Antonia’s claim and why?
7. Anyone putting a poster as in this case offers a deal. Laurie has accepted this offer which had a reward as a consideration for uniting the puppy with the owner. The deal has benefit for both the parties and has been done in good faith. Hence the puppy owner is liable to pay the reward to Laurie.
Elements of contract-
Offer - Putting up a poster is an open offer to everyone to find the puppy.
Acceptance - Laurie accepts the offer and unites the puppy with owner.
Consideration - The reward is consideration
Good faith - Th deal was done in good faith.
Mutual benefit - The contract had mututal benefit of both parties.
Performance - It was done as said in the offer,
8. For making it a negligence claim, Maria will have to prove that provision of netting is a norm in the conduction of the game and by not providing the netting, the management of stadium acted with negligence which resulted in injury to the party.
For defending the suit, stadium management will have to prove that anyone visiting the stadium to watch the game has the implied risk of being injured by ball. It may also prove that Maria Antonia was standing a at a place that was vulnerable to shots and anyone standing there should have been careful. It may also refer the court to the instructions and disclaimers ( if any) on the entry tickets and term and conditions of entry, which warn the visitors against the risk of such injuries.