Question

Jim and Alice Mullins were the owners of 28 pieces of silver that Alice’s father had given them as a wedding present many years before. Each piece was engraved with an “M.” In April of 1995 they brought used clothing to Goodwill saying they “wanted to make a donation.” Unknown to Jim and Alice, however, their silver along with a wallet containing credit cards was in the bundle of clothing they donated. After realizing what had happened, they called Goodwill but were told the silver had been sold to Joyce Hardart for $15. Joyce declined to return it contending that she had bought it from a store that deals in donations (abandoned property). Jim and Alice sued Joyce to recover the silver.

Who has title to the silver and why?   

Ivancic sued Olmstead in negligence for her failure to remove a tree from her yard that overhung his property and that fell and injured him. An expert testified that he could tell from a picture of the tree that it was dead. Therefore, Ivancic contended that Olmstead had constructive knowledge and thus, a duty to remove it which she didn’t do. Upon what legal reasoning did the court reject his claim?

Workers agreed to work aboard a canning ship during the salmon canning season. The contract, signed individually by each worker, was to last for the length of time it took to sail from Seattle to Ketchikan, Alaska and back. Each worker was to receive a stated compensation. They arrived in Alaska at the height of the fishing and canning season. Knowing each day’s delay would be financially disastrous and that it would be impossible to find workers to replace them, the workers threatened to quit unless they were given a substantial increase. The owner of the ship agreed to their demands.   However, when the ship returned to Seattle, the owner paid them in accordance with the original agreement. The workers sued to recover the additional amounts due under the second agreement.

Will the second contract be upheld?

Why or why not?

Answer 1

In the first part of explanation it has said that John and Alice got the silver as a donation. But there is no proof, from where the silver's were bought and by whom. Joyce, said that she had bought the silver from a store. That means Joyce has the proof of buying the silver. Therefore, it can be said that Joyce has title to the silver because she bought it from a store.

In case of second explanation, The court will reject the claim on the basis of the expert's test. Because the court cannot accept the case on the basis of an oral explanation of Ivancic and there need proof to accept the case. Hence, the expert's test is a proof to confirm the case.

In the third explanation, it has seen that as per the agreement the workers worked till the ship returned to Seattle. The workers also paid according to the second agreement, which is not required to pay as there is no case that happened for compensation. Therefore, the second contract cannot be upheld and the workers are asked to recover the compensation which is paid as the additional amount under the second agreement.