BLS 342 Study Guide - Final Guide: Confidence Trick, Comparative Negligence, Strict Liability

• School: Miami University
• Department: Business Legal Studies
• Course: BLS 342
• Professor: All

Document Summary

Know citations won"t be tested directly but might be in case problem, need to identify within. Bring up steps for negligence, ask whether intentional (far-fetched but do it for cases) Ph has defenses (assuming its ohio: comparative negligence. Put: assumption of risk (non-existant in this case not a strong argument) Did giles know of the specific danger of this happening: unavoidable accident. Review session: breach of duty missing if floor wasn"t slippery, thus hard time for plaintiff to prove case. Elements of fraud (plaintiff must prove all of these through a preponderance of the evidence: misrepresentation, of a material fact. Yes he did amount of cattle. Review session: knowledge or reckless indifference to the truth. Yes, he knows how many cattle he had and grossly overstated: intent to deceive. Yes, lied about amount of cattle to get a larger loan: reliance. No, they would perform due diligence and research info provided by swanson.