GROUP 7 [3DOTS]

Name Student ID Email

1 Trần Thị Thái Bình K205012061 binhttt20501c@st.uel.edu.vn

2 Lê Nguyễn Anh Thơ K205012073 tholna20501c@st.uel.edu.vn

3 Nguyễn Kim K205010709 kimn20501c@st.uel.edu.vn

TOPIC 1

TUTORIAL SESSION
1. Read the following. Identify the commonalities in the Barrnetts’ vacation experiences
so that Jane Kass can help them choose a vacation they will enjoy.

Jane Kass is a travel agent. Her friends Jim and Alice Barnett have asked her to
recommend a vacation for them that they will enjoy. She asked them to described their
last three trips together and to tell her if they liked them. Three years ago, they spent two
weeks at a small inn on the island of Nantucket and loved it. Two years ago, they visited
London for a week and stayed in a large hotel in the downtown area. They found it full of
city hustle and bustle and too busy to be restful. Last year, they went on a four-day cruise
through the Carribean on the ocean liner. While they loved being on the water, they did
not enjoy traveling with the large crowd on the ship, and they would have preferred to
have stayed longer on some of the islands they visited.

Answer:

Jim and Alice Barnett described their last three trips together in Nantucket, London and
Carribean and told her if they like them. They obviously enjoy being near the ocean,
especially on the island. They seek out a peaceful place to rest rather than congested areas
 like London. They prefer a long trip to a hustle trip. Those commonalities can make it
easier for Jim and Alice Barnett to choose a vacation they will enjoy.
2. For each of the following, read the facts, state the rule, and answer the question.

1. The court has ruled that no divorce can be finalized until one year after the filing of a
petition for divorce. Georgia and Jim Brown filed a petition with the court for a divorce
degree on June 1, 2001. Jim Brown wishes to re-marry. What is the earliest possible date
that his next wedding can be scheduled?

Answer: Through the information above, the rule can be interpreted that the divorce
settlement would last for 1 year. And it is impossible for anyone to remarry while this
process has not completed. Therefore, Jim Brown can be only allowed to remarry after at
least one year from the time of filing for the divorce petition. Because Jim Brown filed
for divorce on June 1, 2001, the duration started on June 2, 2001, ended at 24h00 June 2,
2002. So, the earliest possible date that his next wedding can be embarked on is June 3,
2002.

2. Courts in Arcadia have declared that no one under age 18 can enter into a contract.
Skip Henley, age 16, has just signed a membership contract to join the local health
club. His parents are upset that he must pay monthly membership fees for two
years. Has Skip signed a contract that can be enforced?

Answer: The rule is that only people from the age of 18 can enter into the contract and
there are no exceptions in this regulation. Meanwhile, Skip Henly made a contract at the
time she was 16 years old (i.e. under 18). As a result, Skip Henly's signature on the
contract cannot be used to enforce it.

3. Read the following. State a rule that would define undue hardship.

A law student has been called for jury duty in the state of Arcadia. Her jury summons
says that potential jurors may be excused if service would cause an undue hardship. She
asked the clerk of the court to explain reasons that might excuse her. The clerk told her
that in one case, a self-employed baby-sitter who would have been unable to work while
serving on a jury was excused. Serving on the jury would have caused undue hardship
because she would have no income for the period of service. In another case, an
accountant who had purchased nonrefundable plane tickets to Los Angeles for his
family’s vacation, scheduled for the day his jury service was to begin, faced an undue
hardship and was excused from service. In a third case, an investment banker who feared
that he might lose an important client if he could not attend a previously-scheduled
meeting was not excused, since the risk did not constitute an undue hardship.

Answer:

From the above 3 cases, we can see that:

Firstly, in one case, a self-employed person will do their own job and have no alternative
job to earn income. While servicing on the jury, they can not work and they have no
alternative job. So, they will have no income for the period of service. It is an undue
hardship.

Secondly, in another case, the jury service start date coincides with the scheduled flight
schedule. As a result, they have to reschedule their flight or give up their purchased ticket
to join jury service. It is an undue hardship.

Finally, in a third case, the risk that person may lose an important client if that person can
not attend a previously-scheduled meeting and lose that person's income, which is not an
undue hardship. Because that is not the actual damage, that person can foresee and look
for someone else to attend a meeting on their behalf or move the meeting to another date.

Hence, a rule would define undue hardship from the analysis above as follows:

Undue hardship is the case when a person is excused from serving on the jury obligation
to avoid an unreasonable or disproportionate burden or obstacle that are actual
damages. Except where the risk of actual damages is one that is foreseen or fungible.

4. Using the rule you identified in Exercise 3, predict whether the law student would
qualify for an “undue hardship” excuse in the following situation.
A law student has an interview scheduled with an out-of-state law firm on the same days
as her jury service. She knows that the firm is completing its interview process that same
week. Jury service is scheduled to last two weeks.

Answer: From the rule of exercise 3, undue hardship is determined by actual damage, we
have to consider whether the actual damage happens or not. When serving the jury in the
same schedule of the interview, she can not take part in the interview. Moreover, the
process of the interview is being completed and can not change any more. However, if
she attended, it is unlikely that she would have passed. The failure of law students to
participate in the interview only leads to the case of "possibly losing their job" because it
is uncertain whether the student will pass the interview or not. The case "maybe" is not
considered an undue hardship case according to the rule of sentence 3. Therefore, the
case of this law student does not constitute an undue hardship.

5. Arcadia has a shoplifting law that reads, “Shoplifting occurs when an individual in a
store removes or hides goods with the intention of taking them without paying for them.”
Read the following facts and cases, and state a rule that explains when someone violates
the shoplifting law. Then apply the rule to Johnson’s case and predict how a court would
rule.

Facts

Jack Johnson, age 16, lives in the Arcadia. He was detained for shoplifting a music store.
Jack was accused of taking two CDs. He claims he meant to pay for them and only
stuffed them in the pocket while he looked at DVDs. He was apprehended by security
guards before he left the store.

Cases

Three recent cases discuss the crime of shoplifting under Arcadia law. In one, a man who
was carrying a large trash can walked out of a hardware store to determine if it was fit in
his car. He claimed that he has no intention of taking the can without paying for it, but
only wanted to see whether it would fit in his car. The court found that he was not guilty
of shoplifting. In another case, a women was arrested in the parking lot of a drug store
with six bottles of nail polish in her pockets. Though she claimed she intended to pay for
them but forgot, the court found her guilty of shoplifting. In the last case, a woman
entered the fitting room of a clothing store. When she emerged, she was wearing four
shirts, one under another. Each had the price tag attached. She was stopped in the
adjacent parking lot by store security and charged with shoplifting. The court found her
guilty of shoplifting.

Answer:

ISSUE: Did Jack Johnson violate the shopshifting law?

RULES: Rule that explains when someone violating the shoplifting law under Arcadia
Law:

“Shoplifting” occurs when an “individual” “in a store” “removes” or “hides” “goods”

with “the intention of taking them without paying for them”.”

Shoplifting is violated only if these below elements are satisfied:

(i) an “individual” is any human

(ii) “in the store” is the relation of this human with the place in which shoplifting
happened such as customer, guest etc

(iii) “remove” and “hide” goods are actions to take something away from owners without
attention or acceptance of them

(iv) “goods” is product being exhibited and for sale in the store

(v) “the intention of taking them without paying for them” means the action “remove”
and “hide” are taken by this human’s control of mind in order to avoid paying, not by
accident or by any misunderstanding with the regulations of the store.

Besides the law, there are three cases defining the rules about the need to do the action
that seemed like “shoplifting” which helps to identify whether “the intention of taking
them without paying for them” existed or not.
 In the first case, there was a need for the man to take the trash can to his car and examine
whether the can was suitable or not so the reason he supposed is suitable. In the second
and the third, there was no need for the woman to put six bottles of nail polish in her
pockets when shopping in the drug store and also there was no need for the woman to put
four shirts simultaneously.

According to the decision of each case, it is clear that the need for doing the action
contributes to the existence of “the intention of taking them without paying for them”.

APPLICATION:

In this current case of Jack Johnson, the rule can be applied by the court in the
explanation below:

1. Is Jack Johnson an “individual”?

He is an “individual” because there is no detail about the age.

2. Is Jack Johnson “in the store”?

He is in the store because he was choosing CDs and DVDs in the music store

when the problem happened. He is a customer of the music store.

3. Whether the CDs Jack Johnson took were the goods of the music store?

The CDs Jack Johnson took were the goods of the music store because the

music store sells this kind of goods related to music.

4. Did Jack Johnson “remove” or “hide” the goods?

Jack Johnson did “remove” or “hide” the goods because he stuffed them in the

pocket where the owner could not see.

5. Did Jack Johnson remove or hide the goods with the intention of taking

them without paying for them?

Jack Johnson didn’t removed or hided the goods with the intention of taking them
without paying for them because when he was apprehended, he hadn’t left the store. In
two case that the court found the guilty of shoplifting, they left the store with goods but
didn’t pay for them. So, it is uncertain about Jack’s intention of taking them without
paying for them

CONCLUSION: Shoplifting was not violated by Jack Johnson because there was not his
intention to take the goods without paying for them.

6. On 1 September 2020, Vinh, a 19-year-old man from Sydney, was stopped by

police while riding as a passenger on a motorcycle being driven by his friend on the
sidewalk next to Main Street. Vinh was charged with a violation of the Road Traffic
Act, 1985, Section 18. Vinh has hired you as his lawyer, and asks you to advise him
whether he should fight the charges in court or just go ahead and pay the fine of
$250 USD. Please fully advise Vinh. Use IRAC Method to analyze the case.

Answer:

Issues: Did Vinh violate the Road Traffic Act 1985, Sec. 18 when riding as a passenger
on a motorcycle being driven by his friend on the sidewalk next to Main street?

Rules: The Road Traffic Act, 1985, Sec. 18 is violated only if these four elements are
satisfied:

i. a “person” is any human being over the age of 16 years old;

ii. a “vehicle” is any method of mechanical transportation;

iii. to “drive” a vehicle means to control how fast the vehicle goes and the direction the
vehicle goes in; and

iv. a “footpath” is any sidewalk or path that is intended primarily for people to walk on,
not for vehicles;

Application

1. Is Vinh a person?
He is a person because he is a human being over the age of 16. He is 19.

2. Is Vinh’s motorcycle a ‘vehicle’ ?

It is ‘vehicle’ because it is a method of mechanical transportation. Indeed, a motorcycle is

a machine, is mechanical, and is a means of transportation.

3. Was Vinh ‘driving’ the motorcycle ?

He was not driving because he was not controlling how fast the motorcycle was going
and the direction it was going in. He is only a passenger on a motorcycle being driven by
his friend.

Conclusion: Because Vinh isn’t a person who drove a vehicle on a footbath, it can be
concluded that he didn’t violate the RTA and won’t likely be required by the court to pay
the fine of $250.