Keating v. Goldlick & Lapp Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc.

Keating v. Goldlick & Lapp Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc.

Case facts

Lapp Roofing and Sheet Metal is a company headquartered in Dayton, Ohio. The company sent Goldlick to work on a roofing project. Lapp Roofing entrusted Goldlick with transporting the workers to the roofing site and provide them with meals, and he was not to use the van for a personal reason. Goldrick and other employee went to a bar to have drinks. After the drinks, Goldlick stroke seven people while he was leaving the parking lot. Keating and other victims filed personal injury claim against Goldlick and Lapp Roofing Company.

Analysis of the case

Goldick’s negligent conducts were not committed within the scope of his employment; therefore Lapp Roofing could not be held liable for his actions (Cheeseman, 2004). Based on the case facts, it is evident that Goldlick injured the victims, including Keating at a place quality assuranceas away from the construction site (Cheeseman, 2004). As part of Lapp Roofing company contract terms, an employee was not supposed to engage the van for other personal reasons. As a result, Goldrick was to be liable for the damages.

The court ruled out that Lapp Roofing was not liable for Goldlick’s actions because they were conducted out of the employment’s scope (Cheeseman, 2004). Also, the incident was not related to Goldlick work, and it did not occur during working hours. The company could not acquire any unrelated or related benefits from the actions..

If was the judge, I could rule out that Lapp Rolling could not be instructed to cater for the damages infringed to the victims. Besides, the company had stated that it could only be liable for the damages caused by the line of duty, yet Goldlick did it in a bar parking lot.

Reference

Cheeseman, H., R. (2004). Chapter 29: Agency Formation and Termination in Business Law, 5^th Ed. Prentice-Hall Publishers.

Part Two

Leonard v PepsiCo

Issues

Is the Plaintiff entitled to specific performance of an alleged offer of a jet fighter plane featured in a television advertisement offering merchandise in exchange for “points” earned by purchasing advertiser’s product?

The District Court for Southern District came into consensus with PepsiCo in the following grounds. There was no objective person who could have concluded that the commercial would offer harrier jet to consumers in exchange of points earned after buying a Pepsi Cola (Knapp, Crystal & Prince, 2019). Second, the commercial could not be counted as an offer. Lastly, the alleged contract did not meet the legal statutes threshold.

The defendant in the case was PepsiCo Inc. which conducted a promotion offering to give out merchandise in exchange of points earned after purchasing PepsiCo (Knapp, Crystal & Prince, 2019). The commercial was composed of a teenager who gloated over various PepsiCo company, including arriving at school in Harrier Jet which was stated to be given after a customer wins points worth 7million (Ricks, 2015). The plaintiff was John D.R. Leonard, who accused PepsiCo of failing to deliver the Harrier jet, yet he won and tendered point’s equivalent to 7million.

Rules

There was no specific performance that could be entitled to the plaintiff in regard to offering of a jet fighter plane shown in a television advertisement offering merchandise in exchange for “points” earned after purchasing advertiser’s product.

Application

PepsiCo came into consensus with the United States District Court for the Southern District that the motion for summary judgment was to be conducted based on the following perspectives (Knapp, Crystal & Prince, 2019). First, no person of sound mind could have concluded that  PepsiCo advert was meant to give a Harrier jet to a customer in exchange of points earned (Ricks, 2015). Second, the contract reported to have been unlawfully terminated did not meet the New York statute of frauds. Lastly, the alleged contract did not reach the legal law’s threshold.

The three facts provided above were useful in concluding the case. After the court analyzed the provisions of the circumstances, it realized that a teenager did the advert in a Harrier jet (Knapp, Crystal & Prince, 2019). However, the commercial was exaggerated since the act of a teenager travelling to school in Jet was nothing short of overrated fantasy. As a result, the court made the following observation. First, the teenage youth featured in the commercial could not be trusted with not only parents jet’s keys but also those of car, and the price offered was far much less than United States Marine Corps (Ricks, 2015). Second, the teenager’s comment that flying a jet “sure beats the bus” was baseless since there is no way one could pilot a fighter jet within a residential area. Lastly, there was no school which could admit students coming to school daily with aircraft due to the disruption it causes.

Conclusion

Based on the above discussion, it is evident that the plaintiff did not make thoughtful decisions while he was accepting the offer. Notably, a Harrier jet worth $23million could not be sold at 700 million. Again, there was no objective person who could have concluded that the commercial would offer harrier jet to consumers in exchange of points earned after buying a Pepsi Cola. Besides, the ad could not amount to offer. Notably, the alleged contract did not meet the New York legal statutes threshold. I agree with courts opinion since the price of the harrier jet and the content of the commercial did not reach the acceptable material facts of an advert.

References

Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. M., & Prince, H. G. (2019). Problems in contract law: Cases and

materials. Aspen Publishers.

Ricks, V. (2015). The Story of Contract Law: Formation. CALI eLangdell Press.