Sample Law Paper on the process of issue spotting for law cases

Goal: This assignment assesses your knowledge of negligence, strict product liability and warranty concepts and introduces you to the process of issue spotting for law cases. Directions: In this assignment, you will identify issue(s) from a set of legal facts and formulate a discussion explaining what the outcome should be. Essential skills to law students (and practicing attorneys) is the ability to spot the issue within a case opinion or set of facts, and explain to someone without any knowledge of the case how the court should decide. Read the attached scenario (Module 2 Issue Spotter Assignment.pdf), and identify the issue(s) presented by the facts. Remember, this module covered the topics of negligence (general, strict and defective design/manufacture) and warranties. If necessary, return to the lesson and review the elements of negligence(s) and discussion on warranties in sales. You are expected to craft a discussion outlining the issues you identified, explaining how each apply to the facts and a conclusion as to next steps. This assignment should be a minimum of 2-3 pages (but can be longer) in length and answer all questions posed. See Below: Phyllis Green is in the market for a new car. She visits her local Z- Car dealership to shop. Z-Line markets its cars as an economical alternative to high priced luxury models. When Phyllis gets onto the lot, a salesman, Jim Lawson approaches her to pitch the sale. Jim is one of the leading salespeople at the Z-Car dealership, with a very aggressive sales pitch. Phyllis expresses her concern about safety, and Jim reassures her that the cars are incredibly safe. “You have nothing to worry about” was his exact statement. Relieved, Phillips goes for a test drive and falls in love with the Tiger model, which is one of the low-end cars in the line. She signs the contract to purchase the Tiger and it contains the following clause: “This contract is the full expression of your agreement with Z-Car. No oral representations or warranties are valid.” Phyllis happily purchases the car. Six months later, as Phyllis is driving on the highway, she attempts to use the brakes, but they do not work. As a result, Phyllis crashes into a guard rail and is severely injured. Tests show that the brakes have a defective design, and the car has poor quality control process for inspecting brakes. You are a friend of the owner (Harold Jones) of the Z-Car dealership that Phyllis bought her car from. Harold received a phone call from Phyllis’ lawyer threatening to sue both the manufacturer and his dealership and has scheduled a meeting with his attorneys. Harold knows you have a little knowledge from this course you are taking and asked to have some background on what is walking into when he goes for the meeting. Harold doesn’t want to go in not knowing anything about his dealership’s risk, and specifically if the manufacturer shares the blame. He asks you to write him a memo laying out what types of legal claims (negligence(s), strict liability, warranty violations, etc) Phyllis might have. He also wants you discuss any defenses they have, and the likelihood she could be successful on one or more of the legal theories.