Tort Law: Cases, applications and defense


In the traditional settings for contracts to be enforced, there are two factors to be considered for a contract to be considered legally binding. One, the parties in the contract agree to the provisions and terms of the contract. Two, there must be the establishment that items of value has been exchanged, such as monetary compensation, services or items, or in the case of Tim and Greg, an agreement or promise to purchase or exchange for an item in exchange for another item of value; in this case, cash for the stereo set. Since Tim agreed to buy the stereo, Tim and Greg had a binding contract (Timothy Morgan, 2010).

As the first question has established the fact that there indeed exists a binding  and enforceable contract, as the facts have sufficiently met all the requirements that a contract does exist between Greg and Tim. With regards as to whether Greg is bound to include the collection, the statute states that he is not; he is only bound as to the item that he offered to Tim. In employing defenses to the enforcement of a contract, Tim must prove that there was either the presence of coercion, threats, duress and undue influence on the part of Greg.

But Tim can use the defense of undue influence in the enforcement of the contract. As Greg has been described as one whom Tim highly regards, his neighbor, and Tim can claim that his regards for Greg made him enter into the contract with Greg (Morgan 2010).

Arson, Larceny, Battery and Conspiracy to commit battery

In the discussion for the crime of arson, the primary factors that are essential to establish the crime of arson is that there is evidence of conflagration and evidence that a felonious act caused the fire. The criminal must be declared to have an intent to burn the establishment down, and that there is the element of malice, and not a product of an accidental event (Law Library-American Law and Legal Information, 2010).  In the case above, the two did not intend to burn down the theater, just to create a commotion, but with malice. Since the the two did conduct themselves with outrageously reckless behavior, that would constitute malice. In this regard, the two are guilty of arson.

In the case for battery, these elements must be established. One, there must be an act by the defendant; two, there is an aim to cause harmful contact on the part of the accused, and third, the plaintiff in the case must have been dealt contact by the defendant. If the plaintiff is inflicted physical harm; cuts, burns or shooting wounds; that would constitute battery (Legal Information, 2010).  And in the case of Able and Baker, the injury that was inflicted upon Vicki to fracture her ankle, since the breakage of her ankle would constitute an illness after the contact that would comprise the crime of battery, since the two created the commotion that inflicted the fracture, they are guilty of the crime of battery.

In Runions V. Tennessee State (No. 08C1159) (2009), the plaintiff argued that the professors and administrators used any means possible in removing her from the classroom, including physical force. Ms. Runions, the plaintiff in the case, was removed from the nursing program in the school: she appealed and thought that her appeal would be favorably acted upon.

On her return to class, she was escorted out of the room by Ms. Wilson by the arm. In her case to prove that her professors committed conspiracy to commit battery, she needed to prove that the accused conspired with each other to remove her from the program. In the end, Runions admitted that the alleged accused in the crime did not do anything unlawful, and since the actual crime did not constitute battery, the conspiracy did not exist, and thus has no claim to invoke that a conspiracy to commit the crime transpired (Tennessee Court of Appeals, 2009).

In the crime of larceny, there again exists several factors that must be established to prove that such a crime exists. One, the defendants must have taken the property without the consent of the owner; two, the defendant must have gained from the ownership of the stolen item, and the theft must be done as to deprive the ownership of the possession of the property (State of Connecticut, 2010).

In the case mentioned, Able picked up the wallet, obviously belonging to a patron of the theater, divested the money and threw the wallet again on the floor. There is theft in that Able divested the wallet of the money, and kept the money for himself, causing the owner to lose possession of the items. Thus, it can be argued that Able is guilty of the crime of larceny.


If the house is condemned or abandoned, this will not constitute arson, or if the building that was razed belongs to the owner of the edifice. In the matter of battery, if there is a degree of consent on the part of the injured party, when the parties move in a certain area that is crowded, then the party cannot claim battery. Larceny must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused satisfies all the requisites for the crime (Legal Information, 2010).

Tort Law: Intentional Tort and defenses

Tort law can be defined as the illegal breach of duty that resulted in an injury to the person or property of another person. Intentional tort is construed as an injury inflicted by the positive and deliberate conduct of another (Tort Law). In the case of tort law, the tortfeasor, in this case Dave, was pushed by Paul inside a crowded bar. As earlier stated, battery cannot be claimed if there a hint of consent, and Paul and Dave both consented to being pushed inside the bar as it was full.

Dave deliberately grabbed a bottle and threw the bottle at Paul, but hit Sally. Dave is liable for the injuries of Sally, as he threw the bottle, with malice that the bottle would hit Paul. Dave is liable for the damages that he did in the damage to Paul’s sleeve, which was ripped when Dave grabbed him. Paul has no liability in the matter to Dave, as they were in a crowded bar, and Paul had no intention of deliberately inflicting harm on Dave.

Dave is also guilty in sullying the reputation of Paul, misrepresenting the latter as a drunk and negligent worker in their company. The defense to a charge of violating an intentional tort is the presence of consent (Saskatchewan Schools and School Divisions). In this case, there was no consent, thus Dave was guilty of all the allegation in the case.References

Law Library-American Law and Legal Information. (2010). Laws on Arson and Battery. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from

Morgan, T.J. (2010). Will your contract be enforced under the law? Retrieved August 19, 2010, from       forms-  contracts-overview/business-forms-contracts-overview-enforceable.html

Tennessee Court of Appeals. (2009). Jamie C. Runions v. Tennessee State University (No. 08C1159). Retrieved August 19, 2010, from            Tca/PDF/093/Jamie%20C%20Runions%20v%20TSU%20et%20al%20Opn.pdf.

Tort Law. Glossary. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from

Saskatchewan Schools and School Divisions. Defenses to Intentional Torts. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from

State of Connecticut. (2010). Criminal Jury Instructions-Larceny. Retrieved August 19, 2010, from