Predict the Verdict Civil Cases and their Verdicts

373 views
283 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
373
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Predict the Verdict Civil Cases and their Verdicts

  1. 1. Predict the Verdict Civil Cases and their Verdicts
  2. 2. Civil Case No. 1 <ul><li>Armen has been renting Paryur’s apartment since 1992. In 2005 Armen filed a complaint before the court requesting to recognize his ownership over the apartment. Armen insists that, although he is not the legal owner of the apartment, he has possessed the apartment as his own in good faith, openly, and uninterruptedly for more than ten years. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  3. 3. Verdict for Civil Case No. 1 <ul><li>The Court ruled against the Plaintiff (Armen) because Armen knew that he was renting Paryur’s apartment, and therefore his adverse possession was not in good faith. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Civil Case No. 2 <ul><li>Arsen filed a complaint against Hrayr requesting the return of 15.000 USD barrowed by Hrayr. Arsen submitted as evidence of the transaction a receipt signed by Hrayr. Hrayr accepts that the receipt is an original document, but refuses to return the money because he never received the money described in the receipt. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  5. 5. Verdict for Civil Case No. 2 <ul><li>The Court ruled for the Plaintiff, because a receipt signed by the borrower is sufficient evidence. </li></ul>
  6. 6. Civil Case No. 3 <ul><li>Angela and Aramazt have been living together as husband and wife since 1999. Their marriage was not legally registered. In 2001 Armen bought an apartment and registered it in his own name. In 2008 they separated and Angela filed a suit requesting to recognize her joint ownership over the apartment because property obtained by spouses during marriage is in their joint ownership. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  7. 7. Verdict for Civil Case No. 3 <ul><li>The Court ruled against the Plaintiff, Angela, because the so called “factual marriage” does not have the legal consequences of a registered marriage. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Civil Case No. 4 <ul><li>Ararat filed a suit with substantial evidence requesting that the Court recognize his ownership over the domain names www.ararat.com and www.ararat.org . </li></ul><ul><li>Did the court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  9. 9. Verdict for Civil Case No. 4 <ul><li>The Court ruled against the Plaintiff, Ararat, because of lack of jurisdiction over the matter. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Civil Case No. 5 <ul><li>Mrs. Freeman had spent $450 on a dress to wear to her daughter’s wedding. After the wedding she took the dress to a tailor to have it shortened. The tailor said that shortening the dress would be difficult because of the material, but that he would do his best. Mrs. Freeman was dissatisfied with the results and sued the tailor for $450. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  11. 11. Verdict for Civil Case No. 5 <ul><li>The Court ruled against the Plaintiff, Mrs. Freeman, and found that the cost of the dress was for use as a wedding gown, a purpose which had been fulfilled. Also, Mrs. Freeman had been warned of the difficulty with the alterations. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Civil Case No. 6 <ul><li>Paul offered to help Vinnie repair his house in exchange for Vinnie’s old car. Paul said that he would take the car on Saturday. Before Saturday an antique car Collector saw the car and offered Vinnie $1,800 for it. Vinnie took the money. When the Collector came for the car, Paul had already taken it. Paul refused to give up the car and the Collector sued Paul. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  13. 13. Verdict for Civil Case No. 6 <ul><li>The Court ruled for the Plaintiff, the Collector, because the Collector had given money and Paul had not yet performed any work. As the Collector had completed the exchange first, he got the car. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Civil Case No. 7 <ul><li>Helen was a famous singer on concert tour. When she became pregnant, she used the force majeure provision to withdrawal from her contract with the producer. The producer then canceled the tour. The musicians’ contracts contained a provision for 2 weeks pay if the tour was canceled. The producer refused to pay the 2 weeks citing to the force majeure provisions of the musicians’ contracts. The musicians sued. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against Plaintiffs? </li></ul>
  15. 15. Verdict for Civil Case No. 7 <ul><li>The Court ruled for the Plaintiffs because the more specific provision takes precedent or a more general one. </li></ul>
  16. 16. Civil Case No. 8 <ul><li>Jones wanted to sell his apartment and contracted Riley the Realtor for 3 months to sell it for him. Riley brought Sam and several others to see the house, but Jones never accepted any of the offers. After the contract ended, Jones tried to sell the house himself. Sam came back one day and Jones sold to Sam. Riley sued Jones for his commission. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  17. 17. Verdict for Civil Case No. 8 <ul><li>The Court ruled against the Plaintiff, Riley, because the obligation to pay a commission ended when the contract ended. </li></ul>
  18. 18. Civil Case No. 9 <ul><li>Pat bought a new gold bracelet which was too long for her because the store said that it could shorten it to the right size. By mistake the store shortened it too much and then had to lengthen it to make it the right size. Pat decided that she no longer wanted the bracelet because it was significantly altered and no longer “new”. Pat sued to get her money back. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  19. 19. Verdict for Civil Case No. 9 <ul><li>The Court ruled for the Plaintiff, Pat, because her intent was to buy a new bracelet, not an altered one. </li></ul>
  20. 20. Civil Case No. 10 <ul><li>Mr. Oligarch put down a deposit to buy a house in a famous village in England. The village is famous because some houses are considered haunted (inhabited by ghosts). He did not realize that the very house he was buying is one of the haunted houses. The seller never told Mr. Oligarch that this house was haunted but had written about it in the news papers. Mr. Oligarch no longer wants the house and sued to get his deposit back. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  21. 21. Verdict for Civil Case No. 10 <ul><li>The Court ruled for the Plaintiff, Mr. Oligarch, because even though it was the buyer’s obligation to professionally inspect the house before purchase, Mr. Oligarch never could have found a professional ghost inspection service, nor detected the ghost himself. </li></ul>
  22. 22. Civil Case No. 11 <ul><li>2 years ago Samvel sold a car to Aram who paid the full price. But to avoid registration fees, they signed a power of attorney statement in which Samvel gave Aram permission to drive the car. Now Aram files a petition with the Court to invalidate the power of attorney and to legally recognize the sale to him of the car. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  23. 23. Verdict for Civil Case No. 11 <ul><li>The Court ruled for the Plaintiff, Aram, because the true intent of the parties was a sales transaction. </li></ul>
  24. 24. Civil Case No. 12 <ul><li>Tigran is 14 years old and has permission from his mother to work as a publicity agent for a taxi company. A written document recognizes Tigran as a publicity agent for the taxi company and specifies his pay. After 2 months Tigran has still not received any pay. The taxi service says that Tigran is not an employee, that they only received 6 calls from Tigran’s area and that he has not done a sufficient job. Tigran’s mother sues. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  25. 25. Verdict for Civil Case No. 12 <ul><li>The Court ruled for the Plaintiff, Tigran’s mother, because the written permission to act as a publicity agent constitutes a contract and the 6 calls mean that work was performed. </li></ul>
  26. 26. Civil Case No. 13 <ul><li>Gegham rents a garage for his car. Ashot has a garage for rent closer to Gegham’s house. Gegham negotiates with Ashot to rent Ashot’s garage starting next month. Gegham does not renew his agreement with the owner of his current garage. But then Ashot rents his garage to someone else for more money. Now Gegham has no garage and sues Ashot. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  27. 27. Verdict for Civil Case No. 13 <ul><li>The Court ruled against the Plaintiff, Gegham, because the parties never signed any preliminary agreement for immovable property. </li></ul>
  28. 28. Civil Case No. 14 <ul><li>Meline paid Sarkis $2,000 USD to renovate the bathroom in her summer house. Sarkis then paid Geovrg an unknown amount to buy all of the fixtures and to do all of the work. When Meline goes to her summer house she finds that the sink is cracked and the tiles don’t match. She sues Sarkis for damages. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  29. 29. Verdict for Civil Case No. 14 <ul><li>The Court ruled for the Plaintiff, Meline, because Sarkis was the general contractor responsible for the acts of any and all sub-contractors. </li></ul>
  30. 30. Civil Case No. 15 <ul><li>Claire wants a large tree in front of her house removed. She hired Jack to cut down the tree. Because he has no insurance he required that Claire sign his standard contract which states that “the customer takes sole responsibility for any losses.” Jack was negligent in his work and the large tree fell on his own truck, parked in front of Claire’s house. Jack sued Claire for the cost of the truck. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  31. 31. Verdict for Civil Case No. 15 <ul><li>The Court ruled against the Plaintiff, Jack, because even though the language of the contract is broad the intent of the parties was for Claire to be responsible for losses as to 3 rd parties and not to Jack. </li></ul>
  32. 32. Civil Case No. 16 <ul><li>Jake and Danielle decide to marry. She has a home from a prior marriage, but it needs repair. Jake works in construction. They both live together in the house for 6 months while Jake fixes the home. Jake pays no rent but spends $10,000 in building materials. When the renovation is complete, Danielle and Jake have a fight and Danielle calls off the marriage. Jake sues for the $10,000. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  33. 33. Verdict for Civil Case No. 16 <ul><li>The Court ruled for the Plaintiff, Jake, because he had expected a future benefit from the building materials that he purchased and used in the renovations. </li></ul>
  34. 34. Civil Case No. 17 <ul><li>Victor owns an Indian restaurant called Taj Mahal. Donald Trump opened a hotel and casino called the Trump Taj Mahal in the same city. Victor sued for unfair competition and infringement on his registered commercial name. He claimed some customers were confused by the two businesses with the same name. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  35. 35. Verdict for Civil Case No. 17 <ul><li>The Court ruled against the Plaintiff, Victor, because the two businesses were so dissimilar that it was unlikely that customers would go to the hotel/casino thinking that it was connected to the restaurant. </li></ul>
  36. 36. Civil Case No. 18 <ul><li>Ellen Smith died in a retirement home. The institution sent a telegram to her daughter, Helen, giving the news. Helen made the funeral arrangements by telephone. When Helen arrived at the funeral she discovered the dead women was not her mother. The retirement home had informed the wrong family. Helen’s mother was still alive. Helen sued for anxiety and stress. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  37. 37. Verdict for Civil Case No. 18 <ul><li>The Court ruled for the Plaintiff, Helen, because in this situation the emotional damage deserved monetary compensation. </li></ul>
  38. 38. Civil Case No. 19 <ul><li>Anderson drove his truck to a warehouse to pick up the bags of salt he had ordered. The warehouse supervisor started loading the bags. Although not asked to do so, Anderson started helping, and the supervisor allowed him to. While in the warehouse, a pile of bags of grain fell on Anderson injuring him. Anderson sued the warehouse. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  39. 39. Verdict for Civil Case No. 19 <ul><li>The Court ruled for the Plaintiff, Anderson, because the supervisor had allowed him to work in the warehouse without warning him that the nearby bags of grain were unstable. </li></ul>
  40. 40. Civil Case No. 20 <ul><li>In preparation for repairs, a city worker removed a manhole in the road. Following the city’s guidelines, the worker posted a sign to warn people of the danger. A blind man crossing the road fell in the hole and was injured. The blind man sued the city. </li></ul><ul><li>Did the Court rule for or against the Plaintiff? </li></ul>
  41. 41. Verdict for Civil Case No. 20 <ul><li>The Court ruled against the Plaintiff, the blind man, because the work had complied with the general duty to warn and there was no special duty to warn persons with specific disabilities. </li></ul>

×