Case Scenario:
Scenario 1
Emma Pool is a ultrasound technologist for Mercy Hospital. Emma was approached by a senior official in human resources who represents a competing medical facility. Emma was offered a substantial raise to leave Mercy and work for the new company. When Emma’s boss heard about the offer, he told Emma, “If you agree to stay with us for at least five years, I promise that next year you will receive a promotion with a 15% raise and a 5-year contract.” Emma turned down Arthur’s offer and stayed with Mercy. Eight months later, Emma was dismissed due to corporate downsizing. Emma sued for breach of contract.
• Can Emma legally enforce her boss’s promise?
• What theory or theories would Emma use?
• Provide arguments for both sides, determine which party wins, and provide support for your decision.
Scenario 2
In 2013, Louis Polanski flew over the handlebars of his motorcycle while racing at a motocross contest. Lou landed on his head, flipped over, and came to rest face down in the dirt. As a result of the accident, Lou became a quadriplegic. Lou was wearing all of the recommended safety equipment, including a $500 Fox Racing Helmet, a full-face motocross helmet that was designed for off-road use. The Fox helmet complied with the U.S. Department of Transportation standards and also exceeded the Snell 2010 and DOT standards. The Snell Foundation is a leading worldwide helmet research and testing laboratory. The owner's manual for the helmet included the following:
• Five Year Limited Warranty: Any Fox helmet found by the factory to be defective in materials or workmanship within five years from the date of purchase will be repaired or replaced at the option of the manufacturer. This warranty is expressly in lieu of all other warranties, and any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose created hereby, are limited in duration to the same duration of the express warranty herein. Fox shall not be liable for any incidental or consequential damages...
• Introduction: Your new Fox Racing helmet is another in the long line of innovative off-road helmets from Fox. … The primary function of a helmet is to reduce the harmful effects of a blow to the head. However, it is important to recognize that the wearing of a helmet is not an assurance of absolute protection. NO HELMET CAN PROTECT THE WEARER AGAINST ALL FORESEEABLE IMPACTS.
Lou filed suit against Fox. Lou testified at trial that he had purchased the helmet based on the manufacturer's assertion that the helmet's primary function was to reduce the harmful effects of a blow to the head.
• On what grounds could Lou sue Fox?
• What will Fox argue in its defense?
• Who will prevail? and why
• Could Fox have done anything that would have avoided this lawsuit?