#1 - Mo Fire . . .More Problems

Rakwon (member of the Wu-Tang Clan) was the owner and chef of a well-known Jamaican food restaurant in Manhattan called Mo Fire. On May 8, 2017, Raekwon sold his restaurant for $1,500,000 to Restaurant Brands International, who were looking to break into the Jamaican food market. The contract stated that Restaurant Foods International would continue to operate the restaurant under the name Mo Fire. The contract further stated that Raekwon would not open a competing restaurant (1) within the borough of Manhattan for four years and (2) anywhere within the State of New York for two years. On July 1, 2019, Restaurant Brands International discovered that Raekwon had opened two new restaurants. One of the restaurants is located only three blocks away from Mo Fire. The second restaurant is located in Plattsburgh, New York, over 300 miles away from Manhattan.

a. Would Restaurant Brands International be successful in a lawsuit against Raekwon regarding the restaurant located in Manhattan? Discuss fully.

b. Would Restaurant Brands International be successful in a lawsuit against Raekwon regarding the restaurant located in Plattsburgh, New York? Discuss fully.

c. In either case, what remedies would be available to Restaurant Brands International?

#2 - Up, Up and Away to the Hospital

Thad Anderson was injured while waiting in line for a hot air balloon ride. Anderson was struck by the balloon's basket when one of the balloon's tether lines snapped, causing the balloon to move toward the spectators waiting in line. Anderson had signed a liability waiver (also known as an exculpatory clause) that provided as follows:

I expressly, willingly, and voluntarily assume full responsibility for all risks of any and every kind involved with or arising from my participation in hot air balloon activities with Company whether during flight preparation, take-off, flight, landing, travel to or from the take-off or landing areas, or otherwise.

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, I hereby irrevocably release Company, its employees, agents, representatives, contractors, subcontractors, successors, heirs, assigns, affiliates, and legal representatives (the "Released Parties") from, and hold them harmless for, all claims, rights, demands or causes of action whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, arising out of the ballooning activities...

Should the waiver be enforceable against the Company? Discuss fully. In your analysis, you might want to consider whether the waiver was: (1) overly broad, (2) presented on a take it or leave it basis with no opportunity for the signer to negotiate the terms, and (3) within the contemplation of the parties (in other words, is it something that the signer of the agreement might have considered as something that might potentially occur).