Case Study Analysis – Turning the Tide – Petes Strategy to Save His Bar with the European Championship

Case Study Analysis – Turning the Tide – Petes Strategy to Save His Bar with the European Championship

Question One: Pete’s Claim for a Refund for the Dark Stout Kegs

Under contract law, particularly the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a buyer can reject goods if they fail to conform to the contract (UCC § 2-601). The buyer must inspect the goods within a reasonable time and notify the seller of any nonconformity (UCC § 2-602). The kegs delivered do not conform to Pete’s order. However, Pete did not inspect the kegs until after tapping the 10th keg, beyond the distributor’s seven-day return window. The UCC requires timely inspection and notification of nonconformity. Pete’s failure to inspect promptly and notify the distributor within the return period may be considered unreasonable. This delay can be seen as waiving his right to reject the nonconforming goods and seek a refund. Legally, Pete’s claim for a refund is weak due to his delayed inspection and notification. The distributor’s return policy further undermines his position. The theory of recovery under the UCC necessitates timely rejection of nonconforming goods, which Pete did not adhere to.

Question Two: Liability for Pete and “Andy Schleck’s E-bike Experience”

Under tort law, specifically premises liability and product liability, an owner/operator owes a duty of care to patrons to ensure the premises and products are safe. A failure in this duty that causes injury can result in liability. Pete has a duty to ensure the safety of the e-bikes and provide adequate warnings. He failed to warn patrons properly about the risk of electric shock when pedals are rotated backward (Terry, 2020). This lack of adequate warning and supervision led to a patron using the e-bike improperly, resulting in an electric shock and injuries to multiple patrons. “Andy Schleck’s E-bike Experience” may be liable for providing e-bikes with insufficient warnings. The warning sticker was not conspicuous enough (small font, same color as the bike), which constitutes a failure to provide adequate warning about the risks. Pete may be liable for failing to ensure safety and provide adequate warnings. “Andy Schleck’s E-bike Experience” may share liability for insufficient product warnings. Both entities could face premises and product liability claims for the injuries sustained by the patrons (Terry, 2020).

Question Three

Liability for the Injury to the Child

Under premises liability, an owner/operator must maintain safe premises and prevent foreseeable hazards. An intoxicated person’s actions may also lead to personal liability for negligence if they cause harm to others. Pete had a duty to store the track and field equipment safely, especially since it was placed near a children’s arcade. By stacking the equipment in a hallway, Pete created a foreseeable hazard. Clive, while intoxicated, had a duty to act reasonably to avoid causing harm. His drunken behavior directly caused the equipment to topple, resulting in the child’s severe facial injury. The child’s parent was injured while rushing to assist, further complicating the situation. Pete is liable for failing to secure hazardous equipment, creating a foreseeable risk. Clive is also liable for negligently causing the injury while intoxicated. Both could be held responsible for the resulting damages to the child and the parent.

Liability of the College Students

Individuals may be liable for negligence if they fail to exercise reasonable care in their actions, leading to harm. The college students had a duty to ensure the equipment they delivered was placed in a safe and secure manner. If they left the equipment stacked unsafely at Pete’s instruction, their liability may be mitigated. However, if they failed to exercise reasonable care in stacking the equipment securely, they contributed to the hazard that caused the child’s injury. If the college students were negligent in how they stored the equipment, they might share liability with Pete. Their liability depends on the specifics of their instructions and actions when delivering the equipment. If their actions were a contributing factor to the unsafe environment, they could be partially responsible for the injuries.

Question 4: Causation and the Parent’s Injuries

Proximate causation in tort law requires that the defendant’s actions are closely connected to the plaintiff’s injuries, such that the injuries were a foreseeable result of those actions (Geistfeld, 2020). The improperly stored equipment (Pete’s and possibly the college students’ negligence) led to Clive knocking it over, causing the child’s injury. The blood from the child’s injury caused the parent to slip and twist his ankle. It is foreseeable that improperly stored equipment could fall and cause injury (Geistfeld, 2020). It is also foreseeable that someone might slip on blood from such an injury. The injuries to the parent are a foreseeable result of the initial negligence in storing the equipment and the subsequent actions of Clive. Thus, Pete and Clive, and potentially the college students, could be liable for the parent’s injuries as well. The chain of causation links the unsafe storage to the child’s injury and the parent’s subsequent injury, establishing a proximate cause.

References

Geistfeld, M. A. (2020). Proximate cause untangled. Md. L. Rev., 80, 420.

Terry, N. (2020). Liability and liability shields. Assessing Legal Responses to COVID-19. Boston: Public Health Law Watch, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Research Paper, (2020-11).

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

REMEMBER:
Use the IRAC method as you work through these questions. It will help keep you organized.

Fact Pattern:
Pete is the proud owner of Pete’s Bar and Arcade. Over the last few years, his sales have been down. The Summer of 2024 is going to be his last chance to save the business. Lucky for Pete, the Summer is full of amazing sporting events that he can market.

Case Study Analysis – Turning the Tide – Petes Strategy to Save His Bar with the European Championship

The European Championship is going to bring several people in. To make the customers happy, Pete ordered beer from the host nation, Germany. Specifically, he ordered 15 kegs of high-quality German Pilsner from his distributor. The kegs were delivered and immediately put into service. The Pilsner was very popular.

The Tour de France bicycle race is one of Pete’s passions. He’s excited to feature the sprint and mountain stages (especially the Alps!). To bring in more customers, Pete contracted with “Andy Schleck’s E-bike Experience” to bring in stationary bikes attached to big screens that simulate the race course. The e-bikes are completely electronic and consist of a rubber seat, metal pedals, and a tablet screen as a controller. There is a 3-inch by 5-inch sticker under the pedals that reads “Do not rotate pedals backwards. Electric shock may occur. Please wear shoes.” The print is in roughly 12-point font and is the same yellow color as the bicycle frame. The e-bike representative mentioned the risk to Pete, but Pete wasn’t paying attention.

The Olympics should be a huge draw. Pete knows that he will need to dedicate a lot of televisions in the bar to cover all of the different events. Pete thought it would be interesting to have some equipment to let people see just how heavy a shotput feels or see how high the hurdles are in person. Pete contacted a local college and arranged for them to drop off “an assortment of track and field equipment.” When the college students dropped off the equipment, Pete didn’t have time to look it all over, so he asked them to stack it all up in the hallway next to the children’s arcade.

One day, everything went wrong.

First, Pete’s bar manager Ollie came to Pete’s office to let him know about a problem with the Pilsner kegs. When they hooked up the 10th keg, the beer was clearly not a Pilsner. Ollie’s Ollie reported that the label on the keg says “Dark Stout” instead of Pilsner. A number of the regulars have been ordering the Pilsner. Ollie reported that a few of the customers left when they couldn’t get the Pilsner right away. Pete is upset that he lost some business. Ollie looked for a Pilsner keg, but the remainder of the shipment was all Dark Stout. They are clearly marked as Dark Stout. Pete calls the distributor and asks for replacement Pilsner kegs, but is informed that they are sold out. When Pete requests a refund, the distributor notes that he is outside of his seven-day window for returns. Pete explains that he didn’t check all the kegs and only just now found the error. The Distributor says he’ll call back.

Second, there is an issue with the e-bike. While Pete is on the phone with the distributor, the lights suddenly dim. As he is hanging up, Ollie comes running back to the office. It turns out some patrons stopped at Pete’s after their trip to the pool. One of the patrons was wearing a wet flip-flop and tried to move the pedals backward. The e-bike sent an electric shock through the wet flip-flop and electrocuted the patron. At the same time, a surge of electricity went through all the other e-bikes and quickly spun the pedals. Four other riders were thrown from their respective bikes. One patron has a fractured hip from landing on the hard ground.

Third, and maybe most concerning, are the screams coming from the arcade. Apparently, one of the patrons who had a little too much to drink stumbled out of the bathroom and into the hallway by the arcade. The patron, whose name is Clive, drunkenly knocked over the track and field equipment. The hurdles fell into the javelins and one of the javelins fell out of the hallway and struck a child walking out of the arcade. The sharp point of the javelin made a deep gash across the face of the child. When the child’s parent ran over to help, the parent slipped on the blood on the floor and twisted his ankle, requiring surgery and PT.

Questions:
1. Evaluate Pete’s claim for a refund for the dark stout kegs. Legally, what do you expect to happen? Please show your reasoning. What theory of recovery helps or hurts Pete’s claim?

2. What liability is there for Pete regarding the e-bikes? What liability exposure does “Andy Schleck’s E-bike Experience” have right now? Show your analysis.

3. What liability does Pete have for the injury to the child? What liability does Clive have? What liability do college students have? Show your analysis.

4. Please discuss causation as it relates to the injuries to the child’s parent.