By Saturday, May 27, 2017, submit your answers for TWO of the three scenarios to this Discussion Area. Start reviewing and responding to your classmates as early in the week as possible. You should review and critique the work of at least two other students by Wednesday, May 31, 2017.Select TWO of the following scenarios and answer the question presented.

Scenario 1

Mario took his laptop to Oakhurst Electronics for repairs. Oakhurst repaired the laptop at a cost of $200 and told Mario that his computer was ready for pick up. Before Mario came to pick up the computer, Oakhurst was burglarized and Mario’s computer was stolen. Oakhurst used an alarm system that was working properly and all of the doors and windows were properly secured. Mario sued Oakhurst for the cost of the laptop. Oakhurst denied liability and counterclaimed for the $200 in repairs. What are the arguments for each party? Decide which party should win and provide support for your answers with the applicable law and/or text material.

Scenario 2

Professor Smith knew that her colleague, Professor Smitt had terminal cancer. Smith applied for life insurance on Smitt’s life and named herself as the beneficiary. Because of a similarity in the names of the professor and the colleague, an error was made and the policy was issued.

 

Professor Smith also sold her car to a student, Dan. When the student drove away, it was clear that the student was an extremely reckless driver. Professor Smith decided not to cancel her property insurance policy that she maintained on the vehicle she sold to the student. Shortly thereafter, the colleague, Professor Smitt died and the student totaled the car. Professor Smith applied for insurance benefits under both policies and each of the insurers denied payment. What are the arguments for each party in both cases? Decide which party should win each case and provide support for your answer with the applicable law and/or text material.

Scenario 3

Gordon rented an apartment in a relatively safe neighborhood in Savannah. The door to Gordon’s apartment had two locks, and one of the locks was a deadbolt designed to prevent burglaries. When Gordon left for work, he engaged both locks; however, when he returned that evening, Gordon discovered that someone had broken into the apartment by forcibly breaking the locks. Gordon incurred a loss of almost $5,000 from property taken by the burglar. Gordon contacted the manager of the apartments who had the locks repaired. The repairs were not entirely successful, because on some occasions the locks did not operate properly. The faulty repair allowed the door to be easily opened whenever someone pushed against the door. Gordon complained about the locks on numerous occasions, but the manager did not take any action. A month after the repair, a burglar again broke into Gordon’s apartment, stealing the brand new items he had replaced from the previous burglary. This time, there was no breaking of the locks. The evidence was that the locks were not working properly at the time of the burglary. Gordon sued the owner for the losses from the two burglaries. What are the arguments for each party? Decide which party should win and provide support for your answer with the applicable law and/or text material.