案例分析答题示范.docVIP

案例分析答题示范 Case Analysis Case 1 Facts: One day, Ray noticed an eyeglass 电子、通信与自动控制技术被控制的咨询预审法庭主张 Questions: 1. What’s the main issue of this controversy? The issue in this case is whether the case is mislaid property错置财产遗失物受理上诉的法院证实，赞成Why or why not ? I don’t think that the court would decide in favor of Ray for the following reasons: (1) The case was found on the information desk, it’s clear that the owner had put it intentionally there and forgot to pick it up when he or she left. (2) Ray was only a receptionist接待员’t be returned to Ray and should be kept by the hospital. Case 2 Facts The Brineys owned an uninhabited farmhouse无人居住的农舍Series of traspasses on the property. To stop the unlawful intrusions非法入侵 “no trespass” signs outside the farmhouse. But the incidents continued. So the Brineys attached a shot-gun to an iron bed in the farmhouse bedroom, pointing指向枪管接有电线的门把手霰弹猎枪枪支动产场合之前 Questions: 1. On what grounds did Katko sue the Brineys? He sued the Brineys for willful and wanton injuries. 2. What’s the primary issue in this case? The primary issue in this case is whether an owner may protect personal property in an unoccupied farmhouse against trespassers and thieves by a spring gun capable of inflicting death or serious injury. 3. Do you think that the Brineys’ conduct willful and wanton? Why? I think so. The owner intentionally attached a spring gun and wired接有电线的’s life or caused serious bodily injury. Therefore, the Brineys had conducted willful and wanton injuries. 4. Could the defense “self-defense” available to the Brineys in this case? Why or why not? I don’t think he could use self-defense as a defense against the tort claim, because they were not living there when the trespasser invaded the farmhouse and his life or his family’s lives were not endangered by the trespassers’ acts. Dangerous devices危险设置遭受犯罪’s acts are endangering human life. Case 3 Facts: Jack agreed orally口述地 for $400 to Peter. And they agreed to sign a writ