2.

Specific Instructions on How To Write the Papers

. Attached to this

instruction she

et are three factual situations

and questions

. You will answer these

questions using the IRAC format. Additionally, i

n all three of the factual situations a

case is listed that you will use to develop the rule in your IRAC analysis. The process

you will use in this assignment is discussed in more depth below:

1.

In factual situations one

case is cited

. Therefore you should follow the

following steps

:

A.

Locate, copy and bri

ef the case listed in each factual situation (pay

particular attention to how the case ruled on situations similar to

the factual situation presented to you);

B.

each question presented in each factual

situation using the following rules

:

a.

Use the IRAC

method (Issue, Rule, Analysis & Conclusion)

in

your answer. Assume that the question presented in each

factual situation is the issue presented;

b.

Cite specific language

in the cases

for the "Rule" (i.e., the law)

to be used in analyzing the

facts in your answer

. Use the

following rules in citing these cases

:

FACTUAL SITUATION NO. 2: Jim Morrison is a salesman and D Corp. is the manufacturer of DiMex. DiMex is a steroid that is designed to be used in the growing of table grapes. Specifically, DiMex will boost the size of individual table grapes by 25 to 50%. Jim and D. Corp. agreed that Jim would act as a salesman for D. Corp. (not as an employee, but as an independent contractor), and they signed a contract with the following language in it: "Jim Morrison desires to sell DiMex for D. Corp., and D. Corp., desires that Jim Morrison sell DiMex. Therefore, for valuable consideration, the parties agree, (1) that Jim Morrison shall be paid Ten Percent (10%) for all of his billings on sales units of DiMex; and (2) payments on these sales shall be made every two months for the previous two months in sales." After two months Jim had sold $100,000 worth of DiMex and was happy to see in his mail delivery for that day a correspondence from DiMex. He opened the letter, but instead of a check he saw a letter from DiMex notifying him that the contract was null and void and that no payments would be made. Question: Jim decides to sue D. Corp. for breach of contract. D. Corp is defending on the basis that the terms of the contract were so vague that no enforceable contract was entered into. How would you rule on whether the terms were too indefinite and vague to be enforceable? Case: Haggerty v. Warner (1953) 115 C.A. 2d 468