You will choose from current events/news any article of your choice regarding a concept in Commercial Law. Using IRAC (Issue, Rule, Argument, Conclusion), you will write a legal memo formulating your own issues based on the legal disputes in the article of your choice. See examples below. Email me your draft. For the final version, you will upload the recording of your presentation (will upload a sample of prior students' work. However, you are NOT allowed to present on fraudulent misrepresentation.
( I have added the samples as an attachment that my professor gave the class)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TkL3FrjZJR-izPb06A7zl6hs6zE-1q2_/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KZEMqpOYkf6HMfguiYW4_KOjuxkLjxnM/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XHHIjgnGVlJP5eFI6wrCUK6ln2WGRwZb/view?usp=sharing
image1.png
image2.png
image3.png
image4.png
image5.png
image6.png
,
Boeing vs. Ethiopian Airline and Lion Air
Son Thach
Commercial Law
04/22/2019
Issue:
Fraudulent Misrepresentation?
Whether
Boeing officials have committed fraudulent misrepresentation against Ethiopian Airline and Lion Air
When
Boeing’s officials provided false statements or material omissions regarding proper training to pilots for the new 737 MAX software .
Ignored pilots warnings about the 737 MAX plane issues.
Possible tried to cover up concerns about the aircraft’s system to Ethiopian Airline and Lion Air who relied to their detriments on these misrepresentation, which resulted in these two airline’ plane crashes in past six months killing over 350 innocent passengers.
2
FR
Rule:
3
Any misrepresentation, either by misstatement or by omission of a material fact, knowingly made with the intention of deceiving another and on which a reasonable person would and does rely to his or her detriment.
FR
Argument:
4
1. There is a misrepresentation of a material fact from Boeing
The pilots were not trained for the new automated-system software.
Boeing did not even mention the new feature on pilots’ flight manuals.
Boeing said pilots who had flown an earlier models did not need additional simulator training
In this case, there are significant elements against Boeing in misrepresentation that is consciously false, is intended to mislead another and Ethiopian Airline and Lion Air justifiably rely on the misrepresentation.
FR
Argument:
5
1. There is a misrepresentation of a material fact from Boeing
2. There is an intent to deceive from Boeing
Boeing did too little after at least 5 FAA complains about 737MAX.
After the second crash with Ethiopian Airline, Boeing still reaffirmed 737MAX’s safety.
Boeing was cited by FAA for “negative work environment” among its employees for speaking up.
In this case, there are significant elements against Boeing in misrepresentation that is consciously false, is intended to mislead another and Ethiopian Airline and Lion Air justifiably rely on the misrepresentation.
FR
Argument:
6
1. There is a misrepresentation of a material fact from Boeing
2. There is an intent to deceive from Boeing
3. Lion Air and Ethiopian Airline justifiable relied on Boeing misrepresentation
Boeing is known not only as the biggest airline manufacture –almost 90% of the aviation market- but also for high safety.
No one would doubt its decision on no need additional training
-> over 350 casualties from the two recent crashes.
In this case, there are significant elements against Boeing in misrepresentation that is consciously false, is intended to mislead another and Ethiopian Airline and Lion Air justifiably rely on the misrepresentation.
FR
Conclusion:
7
Therefore, Boeing committed fraudulent misrepresentation against Ethiopian Airline and Lion air in the incidents involving two plane crashes.
FR
Thank You.
image1.PNG
image2.jpg
,
New York man arrested after allegedly threatening to kill U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar Kyle J. Kelley
Issue
Whether Patrick W. Carlineo, Jr. threated to assault and murder Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar when he called Omar’s office, identified himself over the phone, delivered an expletive-laden rant, and threatened her because of her Muslim faith.
2
Rule
18 U.S. Code § 115 (a)(1)(B)
(a)(1) Whoever –
(B) threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such section, with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the performance of official duties
3
Argument
In this case, whoever threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States official with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official while engaged in the performance of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such official on account of the performance of official duties. Here this exists when Patrick W. Carlineo called Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's office and identified himself on March 21, at about 12:20 p.m. Shortly after identifying himself to the staff member of her office, he stated “do you work for the Muslim Brotherhood? Why are you working for her, she's a [expletive] terrorist. I’ll put a bullet in her [expletive] skull.” Shortly after the call, Omar's office referred the threat to the US Capitol Police, which began an investigation with the FBI. When investigated by authorities, Carlineo admitted that he may have said something like that, but was unsure.
4
Conclusion
Therefore Patrick W. Carlineo, Jr is guilty of threatening to assault and kill congresswoman Ilhan Omar.
5
6
Thank You!
Any Questions?