Peanuts Charlie Brown Case Exam Essay

Content type

User Generated

Subject

Law

Type

Exam Practice

Uploaded By

tbyv_trr_o

Pages

Rating

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

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 exactly—to

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

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

Tags: Peppermint Patty v Schroeder Linus v Charlie Charlie Brown v Vet Lucy Wishes to Sue Linus Schroeder v Lucy