B & A Railroad Company
The B & A Railroad Company is liable for Nellie the cow that was hit by a train when it wondered onto the track. The company negligence is that of breach of duty since it failed to put up a fence as required by the law. The law requires any railway company to put up a fence to prevent any stray animals from injuries or death. Otherwise, the company is liable to the owner if any stock is injured or killed due to the absence of the fence. The company is expected to pay the full value of the animal within a stipulated time as long as the owner shows evidence of the injuries or destruction of the stock.
Lionel
Reginald is negligent since his careless and thoughtless driving caused him to cross the center of the highway and scrap off Lionel’s car, damaging its fender. Reginald’s lack of care caused him to hit Lionel’s car which lost control and ended up in the ditch causing personal injuries to Lionel and wrecking the car. Reginald is liable for the damages since he violated the duty of care by driving recklessly. Lionel is entitled to compensation for the property damaged which in this case are the damages to the fender of the car and other damages caused when the car veered off the road into the ditch. Lionel is entitled to compensation for the injuries and medical expenses incurred from the accident caused by Reginald negligent and reckless driving. If Reginald is an uninsured motorist, Lionel insurance company can compensate him for damages caused to the car as long as his insurance has uninsured motorist coverage.
Hawkins
H. E. Butt Grocery Company’s store was negligent because the store manager was aware of the puddle and had mopped it several times, but still failed to put up a sign warning the customers of the imminent danger. After noticing the puddle, it was the obligation of the store manager to warn customers of any known hazards or dangers. Although manager can argue that the water was blown into the store by the wind, this argument is not valid because the store manager had noticed the pool of water and tried to mop it, but still failed to put up a warning sign. There is a high chance that Hawkins will be awarded compensation for the damages and injuries sustained during the fall since there was no warning sign put up.
Minth
Puttkammer will not prevail and no judgment will be made on Minth. This is because although Minth knew about the renovations and they will directly benefit from them, they did not order Puttkammer to undertake the works. The basis of unjust enrichment is the moral principle that when one receives a certain benefit, they have the duty to compensate the other party so as to retain the benefit. In this case, Puttkammer doesn’t imply that Minth ratified or ordered the work or that it undertook the work expecting to receive payment from Minth. Also, the contract for the works was between Puttkammer and Piekarski and was not executed on behalf of Minth. Puttkammer only alleges that Minth approved the performance of the work. Minth is not obliged to pay Puttkammer $ 2,540 that it is demanding for the renovations undertaken when the property was in Piekarski hands.
Willa
A unilateral contract has been signed between Willa and Jonathan. Jonathan wrote to Willa with an offer and it was accepted since Willa reseeds the lawn. Therefore, Jonathan has to pay Willa $150 for the work done.
Anna and Betty
There is no contract between Anna and Betty as the essential elements found in a contract such as a written agreement are not present. This is a promissory Estoppel and it can be applicable and enforceable if it is established by a jury that Anna bought the house by relying reasonably on Betty’s promise.