Access over 20 million homework & study documents
search

Peanuts Charlie Brown Case Exam Essay

Content type

User Generated

Subject

Law

Type

Exam Practice

Rating

Showing Page:
1/8
PART I INTRODUCTION
Charlie decided that he wanted to take a trip and needed someone to watch over
Snoopy and Woodstock while he was away. He goes to his nearest Vet to set up arrangements
for their stay due to their high security and never losing a pet. Some days pass by and Charlie
remembers Linus has the summer off and would possibly watch the animals and apartment for
Charlie. Charlie writes up a letter with the terms of the month long stay as well as a $500 pay
for necessities. Linus writes and agrees but would like $750 for pay. With having a written letter
from Charlie, Linus tells his sister, Lucy, that he can no longer do the repairs to the apartments
for $50/month and she had to find someone else for a higher rate of $75/month. Once
receiving the letter from Linus, Charlie calls the Vet about not needing to stay however, the Vet
informs him he will have to forfeit his $100 deposit. Charlie then sends a letter to Linus stating
that he does not need him to watch the animals. 14 days later, Linus shows up at Charlie’s
apartment. Charlie refuses to allow him into the apartment and with that, Linus threatens to
sue. The following day, Charlie takes Snoopy and Woodstock to the Vet to board and leaves on
his trip. While at the Vet, the window was open, and Woodstock flew away. The Vet put filers
up with a $50 reward for finding Woodstock.
Charlie comes home from vacation and finds that Woodstock is missing and is angry at
the Vet and claims he is going to sue. However, the Vet hands him the receipt that explains that
they are not responsible along with other verbiage. Without paying Charlie storms off without
paying the Vet and the Vet is now claiming to sue for rendered services. A few days go by and
Sally calls Charlie to let him know that she has found Woodstock and is nursing him back to
health. Sally returns Woodstock to Charlie’s apartment and Lucy overhears the conversation.
Lucy informs Sally about the reward from the Vet that was posted on the fliers. Sally demands
the reward from the Vet, who declines and now states she is going to sue them. Sally then goes
to Charlie and explains what happened with the Vet and he states he would pay her $100 for
her care of Woodstock. Sally returns the following day where Charlie refuses to pay and now is
planning on adding him to her list of defendants.
LINUS WISHES TO SUE CHARLIE
The contractual grounds that Linus could sue Charlie on are the mailbox rule.
Acceptance takes effect, thus completing formation of the contract, at the time the offeree
sends or delivers the communication via the mode expressly or impliedly authorized by the
offeror. This is the so-called mailbox rule, also called the deposited acceptance rule, which the
majority of courts follow. Under this rule, if the authorized mode of communication is the mail,
then an acceptance becomes valid when it is dispatched (placed in the control of the U.S. Postal
Service)not when it is received by the offeror. (Note, however, that if the offer stipulates
when acceptance will be effective, then the offer will not be effective until the time specified.)
(Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2018, p. 241) The contract was created on June 15, 2018, when Linus
wrote back to Charlie accepting the offer, thus creating a contract. Linus can prevail even

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/8
through the agreement was not communicated to the offeror; it does not mean that the
contract was not created. However, it does not mean that Charlie does not have any defenses.
Charlie can issue a counterclaim that even though Linus accepted the offer, he did not
agree to the terms that were originally stated in the originally letter. “At common law, the
mirror image rule requires the offeree’s acceptance to match the offeror’s offer exactlyto
mirror the offer. Any change in, or addition to, the terms of the original offer automatically
terminates that offer and substitutes the counteroffer. The counteroffer, of course, need not be
accepted, but if the original offeror does accept the terms of the counteroffer, a valid contract
is created.(Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2018, p. 237) In this instance, Charlie could make a valid
case and prevail. In the case, there was no mention of if Charlie accepted or wrote back to Linus
agreeing to the counteroffer that he sent, creating a non-valid contract.
CHARLIE WISHES TO SUE THE VET
The contractual grounds that Charlie could sue on the ground that the claimed
standards of care were not met, and it does not excuse the Veterinarian from giving the proper
care owed to its patients. The receipt does have an exculpatory clause that would release Vet
Emporium from liability. “Often closely related to the concept of unconscionability are
exculpatory clauses, which release a party from liability in the event of monetary or physical
injury no matter who is at fault. Indeed, courts sometimes refuse to enforce such clauses on the
ground that they are unconscionable.(Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2018, p. 272) However, most
courts view exculpatory clauses with disfavor. “Exculpatory clauses found in rental agreements
for commercial property are frequently held to be contrary to public policy, and such clauses
are almost always unenforceable in residential property leases. Courts also usually hold that
exculpatory clauses are against public policy in the employment context. Thus, employers
frequently cannot enforce exculpatory clauses in contracts with employees or independent
contractors to avoid liability for work-related injuries.(Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2018, p. 272)
The clause is voidable due to reasons of public policy as the party may not excuse themselves
from liability from a duty in which was imposed by them by a statute for their negligence in the
performance of a duty imposed by them by law. In this instance, Charlie could state that Vet
Emporium losing Woodstock caused emotional distress and intentional harm towards
Woodstock. According to these contractual grounds, yes, Charlie would prevail due to the lack
of professionalism of Vet Emporium and lack of welfare of Woodstock caused him emotional
and physical harm.
The contractual agreement or counterclaim that the Vet would have is the exculpatory
agreement that was a part of the receipt which waived Charlie’s rights to sue. In their
argument, they would claim that Charlie voluntarily chose to use the Vet for boarding as well as
signing, which acknowledges that he read the terms of the exculpatory agreement. The Vet will
most likely not prevail in this case. While there was exculpatory agreement on the bottom of
the receipt, there was no evidence that the receipt was given prior to the service being
provided, meaning that Charlie would not have known this information, which would be in the

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/8

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 8 pages?
Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

PART I INTRODUCTION Charlie decided that he wanted to take a trip and needed someone to watch over Snoopy and Woodstock while he was away. He goes to his nearest Vet to set up arrangements for their stay due to their high security and never losing a pet. Some days pass by and Charlie remembers Linus has the summer off and would possibly watch the animals and apartment for Charlie. Charlie writes up a letter with the terms of the month long stay as well as a $500 pay for necessities. Linus writes and agrees but would like $750 for pay. With having a written letter from Charlie, Linus tells his sister, Lucy, that he can no longer do the repairs to the apartments for $50/month and she had to find someone else for a higher rate of $75/month. Once receiving the letter from Linus, Charlie calls the Vet about not needing to stay however, the Vet informs him he will have to forfeit his $100 deposit. Charlie then sends a letter to Linus stating that he does not need him to watch the animals. 14 days later, Linus shows up at Charlie’s apartment. Charlie refuses to allow him into the apartment and with that, Linus threatens to sue. The following day, Charlie takes Snoopy and Woodstock to the Vet to board and leaves on his trip. While at the Vet, the window was open, and Woodstock flew away. The Vet put filers up with a $50 reward for finding Woodstock. Charlie comes home from vacation and finds that Woodstock is missing and is angry at the Vet and claims he is going to sue. However, t ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Goes above and beyond expectations!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4