Fact Patterns

Fact Patterns

Name of Institution

Student Name



Solution: Fact Pattern 1

Since the business would belong to both Sam and Mickey, I would advise them to formalize it and make it a general partnership. If they contribute equally towards the start of the business, then they are equal partners and will share the profits and liabilities of the business in equal measure. The good thing is that even though the partnership may be required to file tax returns, it is not obligated to pay the taxes when they are filed, both Sam and Mickey would pay taxes on their own income personal tax rate, thus there will be no room for double taxation as the company itself will not be taxed on earning. In case the business gets some financial setbacks, the partners will share the liabilities together. Their business will not be subject to so many regulations as corporations have (Wirtz, 2011).

Partnership Agreement between: Jessica (the owner of “BBQ & Brisket”) and Sam & Mickey (The partnership owners of “Tours, Tours and More Tours”)

  • Contract between “BBQ & Brisket” and “Tours, Tours and More Tours”

Effective as of: 18th April 2017 To: None Specified

Declaration: This is a business collaboration/partnership agreement between Jessica, Sam and Mickey to be effective as of 18th April 2017. Failure to follow the terms agreed in this contract, is to be regarded as breach of contract and the injured party will be obligated some compensation based on the magnitude of the loss made. The contract is to be effective for a non-specified period until either of the parties notify the other one month earlier in case they would like to withdraw from the partnership (Wirtz, 2011). .

Terms: Under the consent and witness of both parties, this is declared a mutual contract whereby the consideration and covenants set hereby have been agreed by contracting parties.

Signature of contracting parties:

  • BBQ and Brisket Restaurant is to hereby collaborate with “Tours, Tours and More Tours” and will allow the latter to make one or multiple stopovers to the restaurant as a formal tour guide procedure for visitors of the latter. In return, “Tours, Tours and More Tours” is expected and must pay BBQ and Brisket a fee of $50 for each tour stopped at the restaurant.

Jessica…………………………………………… Mickey……………………………………..


Apparently, since this is a contract between two adults and a minor (as Jessica is just seventeen years old) I would advise Sam and Mickey to demand an adult to sign alongside Jessica and act as a guarantor signatory so that the contract may become enforceable. The direct contract between Jessica, Sam and Mickey is a voidable contract. This means that Jessica can set aside the contract at will or rather, can refuse to enforce the contract at will since she is not legally competent to enter into a contract and thus not bound. However, as for Sam and Mickey, they are bound by the contract as they are legally competent. Getting an adult to sign alongside Jessica will make the adults safe and the contract will now become enforceable.

In order for “Tours, Tours and More Tours” to grow, the partnership with Jessica is just a single step to a longer journey. The partners will have to sit down and look for way to raise capital so that they can employ more tour guides and even build more resorts and improve the means of transporting the tourists. The first approach would be to make contributions from their personal savings. Secondly, they could approach the bank and apply for a business loan. Thirdly, in order for determine if they are progressing, they should hire a financial evaluator and advisor so as to keep record of financial transactions and thus determine the expenses to mitigate (Wirtz, 2011). On the other hand they could open a website where they can reach more tourists on a global scale by making bookings and reservations as a way of marketing “Tours, Tours and More Tours”.

  • Expanding the Company

Solution: Pattern 2

The writing or verbal claims against another person that prove to be untrue is referred to as defamation and there are laws that defend the injured party from a slanderer. In this case, Dewey Love must prove that Sam actually gave a wrong statement and the defendant must prove what he or she said. Dewey Love has to prove that the publication that Sam made was unprivileged to a third party, in this case the unpaid child support and the use of narcotics was unprivileged to the public, however, since Sam could not prove that it was true or not, this amounts to defamation on the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff has to convince the Jury that Sam acted negligibly by making the publication and he would also have to prove how the publications made by Sam caused him or his company some damage (Shamir, Finkelstein & Anti-defamation League, 2014).

  • Defamation

Since Sam acted from a rumor that he had been told by Lisa and actually believed the rumour on the basis of the latter being an honest student in college, Anytown could claim that they had made no authorization of such a publication. They could claim that Sam consulted none and thus is personally liable for the defamation (Shamir, Finkelstein & Anti-defamation League, 2014). .

  • Anytown’s Argument against the Defamation

As a company’s policy, employees are expected to safeguard the secrets of the company and to act in consortium with the management before making any publications (Shamir, Finkelstein & Anti-defamation League, 2014). Therefore, in this case, Anytown have a right to fire Sam as he had breached the agreement with his employer by leaking the news that they were planning to charge their customers more on adverts the next year. This is also a defamation warranting his sacking as he could not prove an action that had not yet taken place. Therefore in this case, Sam had defamed both Love and Anytown.

  • Sam’s Appeal and Firing

Solution: Pattern 3


In this case, even if Lucile had promised to marry Buster, and they made a contract, the consideration in the contract is not valid. This means that according to contract law, you cannot promise to marry someone and be bound by the terms of the contract; it is a voidable contract as the terms have invalid consideration (Abbey & Richards, 2016).


In case Tobias wins the case, then Michael will lose his properties that he has build in the estate and the land itself. This is because Michael did not have the real title deed and a quit-claim deed was used which meant that the property was clearly owned by Michael, the person he bought the land from or even the person he sells it to. Therefore, Michael is likely to repossess his land (Abbey & Richards, 2016).


Gene and Gob do not have a valid contract since the ring they are selling to each other does both belong to Gob. Therefore, the contract set is based on an illegal act and thus declares the contract void. Therefore, even if Gene does not pay the $800 as agreed, the contract cannot be enforced since the consideration is based on an illegal act (Abbey & Richards, 2016).

Abbey, R., & Richards, M. (2016). Property law. Oxford: Oxford University Press

  • References

Shamir, Y., Finkelstein, N. G., & Anti-defamation League. (2014). Defamation.

Wirtz, B. W. (2011). Types of business model management. Business Model Management, 185-191. doi:10.1007/978-3-8349-6566-0_10