Case Study
John Harrington, Jr. (“Junior”) is a 24-year-old, 3-pack-per-day smoker. John
Harrington, Sr. (“Senior”) is a very concerned parent. On January 1, father announces to
son, “Junior, if you will stop smoking for the entire year, I will pay you $5,000.” Senior
believes that if Junior will stop smoking for one year, he will “kick the habit.” Junior
reluctantly accepts his father’s terms, and extinguishes his half-smoked cigarette with the
heel of his boot. On January 1 of the following year, Junior approaches Senior and says
“Dad, time to pay up.” Senior has no reason to doubt that Junior has refrained from
smoking for an entire year, but states, “Son, this was for your benefit. The gift I have
given you is the gift of life, and you are now likely to enjoy that gift longer, because you
are now much less likely to contract cancer. Health statistics show that non-smokers live
ten years longer than smokers. Enjoy your newfound life, but I will not pay you the
$5,000.” Does Senior owe Junior the $5,000? Is there an enforceable contract between
father and son? If there is not an enforceable contract, does Junior have any other legal or
equitable theory of recovery? Is Senior ethically obligated to pay Junior the $5,000? Tommy McCartney is a sixteen-year-old high school student. He has worked forty hours
per week at the local convenience store over the last year, and has diligently saved $6,000
for the purchase of his first car. While visiting a local car dealership, Tommy finds the
“car of his dreams,” a used yellow Camaro. Tommy walks into the dealership, announces
to the dealership owner that he is “ready to buy,” negotiates $6,000 as the purchase price,
and leaves the dealership a proud car owner. Over the course of the next six months,
Tommy drives the Camaro eight thousand miles, wears the tires thin, dents the left front
fender, and regrets his purchase. He realizes that in two short years college will beckon,
and he knows that his parents cannot afford to pay for his higher education. In short, he
wants his money back. On a Saturday morning, Tommy returns to the car dealership,
walks into the sales office, and hands the keys to the seller, asking for the return of his
$6,000. The dealer chuckles, and then his look turns stern, saying “Son, I don’t owe you
anything. You’ve just learned a lesson in the ‘School of Hard Knocks.’ The car is still
yours, and the money is still mine!” Who will prevail? Is it legal and/or ethical to allow
Tommy to escape his contractual obligations?
For both cases Identified:
• Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is
the defendant). • Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns. • Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue
between the two parties). Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be
clear. • Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law. • Be prepared to defend your decision and to objectively evaluate the other points
of view. Write your answers in a word document in black, times new roman as a font.
