written response to problem 2

For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.

One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.

For most problems you should be able to answer in a page or less, e.g. I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion.

2. Albert Arillotta, acting for Interstate Demolition and Environmental Corp. (IDEC), sent an e-mail to CSX Transportation, a railroad company, stating an inter- est in buying rail cars as scrap. Arillotta represented himself to be "from interstate demolition and recov ery express." The e-mail address from which Arillotta sent this inquiry was "albert@recoveryexpress.com." The domain name of the e-mail address was assigned to Recovery Express. Arillotta did not work for Re- covery Express, but he was allowed to use its offices and e-mail because he had been involved in another venture with it. CSX agreed to sell rail cars to IDEC, and they were delivered to the location specified by Arillotta. Neither Arillotta nor IDEC paid for the rail cars. CSX sued Recovery Express to recover the price of the rail cars. Did the court hold Recovery Express liable to CSX on the grounds that Arillotta had ap- parent authority to transact for Recovery Express