Contracts and Pledges In this assignment, you will consider the legality of contracts entered into by minors and whether a pledge or promise to make contribution to a
charity is enforceable. Next, let’s read a scenario. The Adams family owned an old home in New JERSEY that was in need of painting and some other repairs. Charlie

Adams was a junior partner with a law firm and his wife, Jane Adams, worked part-time at the elementary school where their two younger children attended. One morning

after dropping off the kids at school, Jane noticed painters at their house. She sent her husband a text asking if he had hired painters yet. When she learned that her

husband had not hired the painters, she decided to turn around and go shopping before going back to the school. Jason Adams (also known as Adams Jr.), the sixteen-

year-old son, stayed home from school because he didn’t feel well. At 6-feet-tall and 220 pounds, Adams Jr. looks like he is in his early twenties. When the foreman

rang the doorbell, he answered. The foreman said “We are here to paint your house today, is that ok?” Adams Jr. replied, “Sure, as long as I don’t have to help you.”

The foreman asked him to sign some paperwork and he complied. After the younger kids finished school for the day, the mother took them to the park and then they met

Charlie for an early dinner. When the family arrived home, the painters were just finishing and the foreman asked, “So Mr. and Mrs. Munster, how does it look?” The

Adams replied that they loved the color. However, the Munsters lived next door. The foreman demanded payment and reminded Adams that the gentleman inside the house

gave both verbal and written approval. Later that evening while her husband was working in his study, Jane was WATCHING a show on the Animal Planet channel when she

saw a commercial with a bunch of sad looking dogs in dirty cages. The organization urged anyone who wanted to help save the poor animals from all of the cruelty and

neglect to call and make a contribution. Contributors would receive a picture of an animal they helped save along with a t-shirt. As tears welled up in her, eyes, Jane

picked up the PHONE and pledged $5,000 to save the animals. The next morning, she regretted making the donation because she didn’t consult with her husband and he

didn’t much care for dogs. Based on the scenario, create a 2- to 3-pageMicrosoft Word document that includes the answers to the following questions: Was Adams Jr.’s

signature on the paperwork considered a binding contract? Why or why not? Should the Adams be responsible for the bill? Why or why not? Would it make a difference if

the Adams were on vacation in Florida? Why or why not? Will the charity be able to legally enforce the pledge made by Jane Adams? If so, why might the charity choose

not to enforce a lawful pledge? If not, why not? Support your answers with examples. Cite any sources in APA format. Assignment 2 Grading Criteria Maximum Points

Explained whether Adams Jr.’s signature on the paperwork is considered a binding contract. 15 Described whether the Adams should be responsible for the bill. 10

Explained whether it makes a difference if the Adams were on vacation in Florida. 10 Described whether the charity will be is able to legally enforce the pledge Jane

Adams made. 10 Used correct spelling, grammar, and professional vocabulary. Cited all sources using APA format. 5 Total: 50

——————————————————————————————– Legal Issues and their Resolutions In this assignment, you will consider

many of the legal concepts addressed in this course and apply them to relevant scenarios. You are currently a third year law student working as a summer intern for the

largest law firm in Atlantic City, New JERSEY. Your mentor and senior attorney introduces you to a new client, Ronald Crump, the owner of Crump International, a large

multinational organization with diverse businesses in real estate, construction, travel, entertainment, media, and other communication networks. As the owner of this

large organization, Crump is looking to your firm to handle all of his legal needs. You learn the following from your meetings with Crump: The construction division

recently hired a former high-ranking official from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure environmental regulations are followed. Crump is concerned about

the EPA’s proposed rule that will require the construction division to obtain additional permits and conduct more frequent inspections. The agency published the rule

in the Federal Register last week. These new permits will create more work and expense for Crump. The former EPA employee indicated that he knows people at the EPA who

might be able to make the proposed rule disappear in exchange for contributions to fund the newly created environmental training facility in California. The Crump

Resort in Allentown, Pennsylvania (CRAP) is being sued by Josie McDonald for premise liability (negligence) and emotional stress due to bedbug bites during her stay at

CRAP. Crump maintains that his resort properties are held to the highest standards and that he intends to file a countersuit because McDonald created a blog where she

made false statements about the CRAP being infested with bedbugs. McDonald made similar disparaging remarks to the local television station in Allentown. Crump is

famous for his reality show called “The Intern” as well as his favorite phrases “You’re Fired” as he sends interns packing and “You’re Hired” for those who survive the

grueling business BOOT camp. Crump wants to make sure his phrases are protected from use by others without permission. Crump reminds you that this protection should

extend use in the United States and in other countries. Instead of working for her father, Crump’s daughter Erica applied for a position as associate attorney with the

firm of Slippe, Faul, & Sioux, a law firm specializing in personal injury law in Atlantic City, New Jersey. On September 15, the firm offered Erica an employment

contract for one year with a yearly salary of $75,000 starting on October 1. The contract contained the following provisions. Erica could not be terminated during the

term of employment unless she committed an illegal act. Any disputes would be resolved using mediation selected by the law firm. Erica would not be permitted to work

for any law firm within a 100-mile radius of Atlantic City for two years after leaving the firm. Erica accepted the job and signed the contract the same day. Erica

decided to keep the news secret until she returned from vacation the following week. On September 17, Crump offered to give Slippe all of his legal business related to

personal injury if the law firm hired Erica. The firm accepted. When Erica told her father the news about getting the job on September 15, Crump refused to transfer

any legal work to the firm. The law firm filed a suit against Crump, citing the parties had a contract. When Erica showed up for work on October 1, the law firm

informed her that they no longer needed her services. One week later, Erica found another job with Tweady & Byrd, a firm specializing in entertainment law located

about five miles from Slippe, Faul, & Sioux. Mark Holmes, a director in the real estate division, met with Ben Franklin, 80-years-old, about purchasing a large tract

of land owned by Franklin in New Jersey. Crump International planned to bulldoze the acreage to create a new golf resort. During the meeting, Holmes noticed several

brochures about Alzheimer’s as well as several prescription bottles sitting on the table. After discussing the good old days for several hours, Holmes and Franklin

agreed on the sale of the land for $1,500,000. Since Holmes brought a blank copy of a contract with him, he helped Franklin complete the paperwork and both parties

signed. Unbeknownst to either party, the purchase price was written as $150,000. On the day before the closing, Holmes called Franklin to remind him of the location.

Holmes said he didn’t know anything about selling that land and he had no intention of selling his land to some big city slicker. Based on the scenario, create a 8- to

9-pageMicrosoft Word document. The document should serve as an interoffice memorandum to the firm’s senior attorney. In addition, the document should address the

following and any others issues you may discover: What happens when a government agency proposes a rule? What would you recommend Crump do in response to the EPA’s

proposed rule that was published last week? Should Crump make a contribution to the environmental training center? Why or why not? Will Crump win the negligence

lawsuit filed by McDonald? Why? Should Crump file the countersuit for the blog and remarks McDonald made on television? If yes, on what basis? If not, why not? Are the

phrases “You’re Fired” and “You’re Hired” considered intellectual property? If yes, what type? If not, why not? Are there any issues with protecting these phrases in

the U.S. and in foreign countries? What is the status of the employment contract between Erica and Slippe, Faul, & Sioux? Will the noncompete provision be enforceable?

Why or why not? What is the status of the agreement between Crump and Slippe, Faul, & Sioux? Do Holmes and Franklin have a valid contract? What are the basic

requirements for contract formation? What defects in the contract formation process may have occurred? In addition to the above, identify the legal issue, information

that may be missing in order to provide an appropriate answer, and possible solutions. Also, address any potential ethical issues that you identify. Support your

responses with examples. Cite any sources in APA format. Assignment 2 Grading Criteria Maximum Points Described what happens when a government agency proposes a rule.

Provided recommendations to Crump for submitting responses to the EPA’s proposed rule. 20 Explained whether Crump should make a contribution to the environmental

training center. 20 Described whether Crump will win the negligence lawsuit filed by McDonald. 20 Explained whether Crump should file the countersuit for the blog and

remarks McDonald made on television and provided appropriate legal reasoning. 20 Described whether the phrases “You’re Fired” and “You’re Hired” are considered

intellectual property. Explained if there are any issues with protecting these phrases in the U.S. and in foreign countries. 30 Described the status of the employment

contract between Erica and Slippe, Faul, & Sioux. 20 Explained whether the noncompete provision is enforceable. 20 Explained the status of the agreement between Crump

and Slippe, Faul, & Sioux. 20 Described whether Holmes and Franklin have a valid contract. Described the basic requirements for contract formation. Explained the

defects in the contract formation process may have occurred. 20 Explained any potential ethical issues identified. 10 Written components. 50 Total: