Sample Law Essay Paper on Case Analysis

The Law: Case Analysis

Case 1

Jack Smith and John Jones can be said to have committed grand theft, which is a criminal offense. According to Cheeseman (2010), there are two elements that are taken into consideration in making a decision on whether theft is involved in a particular event. The first thing is the taking away of property that belongs to someone else. The next thing is the consideration of the wrongdoer to permanently deprive the owner of that property. These two conditions are ultimately satisfied in the case relating to Jack and John. They steal the car after the guest leaves it behind, other than keeping it safe, which is their obligation. They intend to destroy the car, sell its parts and share the money. This is confirmed when the two are arrested at the lot the following day where the above activity was to take place. The type of theft is grand theft based on the value of the stolen object, which is the car.

Sally does the right thing reporting the crime to the police, after being alerted of the same by her boyfriend John, and is protected by the law against any involvement in the crime. Essentially, she is involved in the fact that she has information on the same, as relayed to her by John, and can be charged with theft or knowingly dealing with stolen items and being an accomplice.

The fact that Jack is actually the one who drives the car puts him in the picture as the thief. Grand theft auto demands that one actually takes or drives the car to be branded as a thief. In his defense, John can argue that he was a passenger not the thief. In this case, he would be charged as an accomplice. However, complications would come in due to the fact that he is the one who communicates the information to Sally. In such a case, he stands the same trial with Jack. The defense that there was no intention to permanently deprive the individual owner of his property would also be out of the question.

The problem further touches on the employer-employee relationship. Jack and John, who work as valet parkers, can be sued by their employer on the grounds of breaching integrity contracts and abandoning responsibility.

I would side with the Sally and the police here since the case against Jack and John is strong.

Case 2

            A partnership refers to the association of two or more individuals to carry out business activities with the aim of making profits, which are shared proportionally. This proportion, as well as the responsibilities and duties of each partner in the business, are outlined either in a written or oral form. In the case of a limited partnership, there has to be one partner who has a general status. The limited partner is liable only up to the amount that he or she contributed as capital. The liability of the general partner is unlimited. The others can be either limited or general partners. In this case, Lynn assumes the status of a general partner through an oral agreement with Mildred. The strict liability statute cannot apply here since the law does not recognize partners as separate persons from the business.

Cheeseman argues that partnerships differ from other business units like companies in that the owners of the business are fully liable for any losses or actions by any of them. However, the fact that partnerships vary in complexity and the types of partners gives flexibility in the area when it comes to determining the liability of various individuals. In this case, Mildred and Lynn are business partners. However, Mildred only contributes her share of the capital and sits back. Lyn is left in charge for the everyday operations and activities of the business. This situation is reflected in the profit sharing ratio, where Lynn takes home 75% of the total, and the remaining 25% goes to Mildred. At dissolution, it is wrong for them to assume that they are not liable for any of the debts owed to their suppliers. They base their argument on the idea that the partnership is a complete and different entity.

All assumptions here are mistaken. The partnership between the two ladies is by no chance any different from themselves. Partnerships generally have no separate existence from the owners. The implication here is that the two ladies are liable to pay for all debts incurred. Another issue arises in the sense that Lynn is in control of all operations, and Mildred has no say over the daily management. This makes her a limited partner. She is only liable for the amount up to her contributions in the beginning capital. The rest falls to Lynn, who has been actively in charge of decision making and has a greater share of profits.

The amount of $40,000 that the partnership owes the suppliers is divisible between the two ladies, but the ratio varies. The capital invested at the beginning is $25,000, which means it is not enough to cover the debts. Of the total capital, Mildred contributes half of it, which is $12,500. She is only liable to pay this amount towards the settlement of the debt. Lynn, whose liability is unlimited, would have to cover for the remaining $27,500 for the same course.

Subs R Us is legally not a different person from Mildred and Lynn. This case is a good example of a partnership that has different kinds of partners in terms of liability and responsibility. It is a valid kind of a partnership that is allowed under the constitution and fully recognized by law. However, it is not permanent and can be easily dissolved in the case where one of the partners pulls out, or through a mutual agreement.

In this case, I would side with the creditors since it is their right to receive compensation for their


A tort has basically four major elements that describe the term. All four must be proven for any event or occurrence to be understood or referred to as a tort. The first element is a duty that an individual has towards the plaintiff. In this case, that particular duty has to have been breached which constitutes the second element of a tort. Thirdly, the plaintiff or complainant must have suffered some form of harm or injury. Lastly, there has to be enough evidence that the accused could have easily prevented the situation from happening, and that his or her negligence caused injury to the plaintiff.


            The most common source of law in America is the legislative arm of the government, which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. In most cases, a representative comes up with a bill, which is based on perceived ideas, and tables it for discussion and possible voting in both the senate and the house before being passed for assentation by the president to become law. Another source of law in America is rulings made by various judges and verdicts made in various cases. When a judge rules a case in a particular way, any subsequent and similar cases will be determined in the same way, except in cases where new circumstances arise. The English common laws found their way into the United States early in time, and still forms part of the most commonly used laws.


A Ponzi scheme refers to an act of fraud where an individual or organization sets up a virtual company. Investors are then called upon to invest in the enterprise. At some point in time, quick returns are given to those who invested first to create a general belief in the company, as well as attract more investors. The returns paid to initial investors come from the money paid invested by those who come later.


The executive, on practical grounds, is very much involved in the law making process. The congress is not left alone in the making of new laws. The president, as the head of the executive, can express his ideas or take a bill to the congress for debate. In addition, through the power invested in him or her by the constitution, he can make orders that are treated as laws in a bid to address emerging issues quickly. The president can also block bills passed by the congress from becoming laws through the invoking of veto. Moreover, the president heads most of the most powerful individuals who are supposed to ensure that the rules that are made are followed to the latter. The president can also take his ideas directly to the people. His powerful appointments also influence the process of law making.


When two or more creditors claim interest on the same property, the one who files and perfects his claim first is given priority. In this case, time is the major consideration. It might appear an unfair procedure, but is one of the best ways out of the situation. As an example, in a situation where there is only one security interest that is filed, it automatically gets priority over those that are filed later. In the case where no claim is filed or perfected by any of the creditors, the issue of security comes into play. The first attachment of security interest is given priority.


            There are four major elements that define a valid contract. First, there has to be a kind of agreement between the two parties. Secondly, the agreement must be supported with consideration, which is sufficient from a legal point of view. Thirdly, the parties concerned in the agreement must be of a contractual capacity; this especially relates to age of the individual. The last element of a contract is that it is meant to accomplish a task that is legal in nature.