Assignment: What types of legal claims could Paula make against Cash Mart and Geoffrey?

Types of Legal Claims
Name
Affiliation
Course
Tutor
Types of Legal Claims
Paula has significant evidence she could use to make legal claims against Cash Mart and Geoffrey. The scenario reveals that she went through a series of unfortunate events she had not planned for or anticipated, and the parties are the major causes of the issues. Thus, Paula has the right to sue Cash Mart and Geoffrey in a court of law for the implementation of justice in ensuring she is compensated for the bad experiences she went through.
Possible claims against Cash Mart
The store should only hold people with evidence in support of the stated crime. In this case, although the guard could have suspected that Paula has shoplifted from the store, he should have gone an extra mile to ensure he is right about the claim before wasting her time and letting her leave without a reasonable explanation (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). For instance, the store could have immediately conducted a security check on the suspect to ascertain the claims made by the guard. Paula conforms to the valid deal that she should have left the store immediately since she did not steal any commodity (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Therefore, Cash Mart must take responsibility for the claims made by the plaintiff. The store does not have any facts to prevent itself since nobody bothered to ensure the guard made true accusations against Paula.
Paula did not take anything from the store. Besides, she did not like the available laptops, and she possibly left faster because she was running late for an appointment. Knowing that Cash Mart is her favourite store as specified in the scenario, she must have a legitimate purpose for visiting. Besides, she could have opted for any other store in the area. Getting into a store and walking out without buying anything if one does not find what they intended to purchase is okay. The event should not be a cause for alarm with the security for suspicion, such as in Paula’s case. Paula did not violate any rule in the store, meaning that she adhered to the Cash Mart customer requirements (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). Therefore, the guard did not have a reason for detaining Paula in the back room.
The plaintiff suffered an economic loss since she could not make to the appointment mentioned in the scenario. Although the store may not have a conceited idea on the type of appointment Paula was rushing to attend, it is evident she did not make it to the venue and the store is to be blamed for the inconvenience. Also, she wasted more than one hour, just sitting in the room scared for accusations she knew nothing about. Anyone would agree that Paula would have probably done something constructive even if she did not have a meeting at the supposed time she was locked in the room. Thus, the mentioned claims against Cash Mart are factual as the store was wrong to hold her up. On the other hand, Paula could have evaded the subsequent unfortunate event if the store did not detain her since she should have left earlier probably before Geoffrey had started hitting his golf balls. Thus, the moment of the hit harming Paula would not have found her in the area.
Negligence claims aga...