Critical Legal Thinking and Cunningham v. Hastings

Critical Legal Thinking
Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Briefing Paper 1: Critical Legal Thinking and Cunningham v. Hastings
Most people do not understand the legal implications of taking the title and how this affects transferability where two or more parties are involved. Tenancy in common, joint tenancy and community property are some of the ways people own property together. In the case of joint tenancy, each party owns interests equally of what they contributed in the acquiring the property (Cheeseman, 2013). Cunningham and Hastings entered a joint tenancy agreement as a couple, with Hastings paying $ 45,000 down payment for a property. The relationship broke down and Cunningham sued for a share of the property, and house was entitled to one half of the interest after the house was sold. It is debatable whether Cunningham acted ethically, but the law must be followed regardless of whether she paid any money. Hastings was in a position to protect his interest in the property through a tenancy in common based on money paid or having a written agreement for returning the money in case the relationship broke down.
Briefing Paper 2: Law Case with AnswersSolid Waste Agency of North Cook County sought the permits from Corps to dispose solid waste in abandoned mines that had water, which served different migratory birds (Cheeseman, 2013). The Army Corps of engineers (Corps) enforce provisions of the Clean Water Act where entities discharged drudge or filled material into navigable waters (Cheeseman, 2013). United States Army Corps of Engineers did not have the jurisdiction to protect isolated wetlands, but then there is a need to prove that the areas are near navigable waterways. Both constitutional and federalism issues arise when protecting the migratory birds in non-navigable isolated areas.
Briefing Paper 3: Critical Legal Thinking Cases22.3 Tying Arrangement- Metrix warehouse- Mercedes Benz of North America (MBNA)
Mercedes was the franchiser of Mercedes dealership in the U.S. and there was an agreement that independent car dealers would get repair parts from MBNA. Metrix also sold repair parts of Mercedes to independent car deals at a lower price and sued Mercedes for a tying arrangement. Mercedes needed to maintain the quality of their products and reputation and the tying arrangement were necessary. However, Metrix would have been successful if there was evidence that Mercedes had more influence in the tying arrangement and that they limited competition.
23.4 Drug Regulations- Wahba v. H & N Prescription Center
Wahba bought prescription drugs from Zuckerman’s in New York and the pharmacist filled 30 tablets in a container with no child proof cap (Cheeseman, 2013). On reaching home, Wahba’s two year old son ingested twenty tablets, the mother realized and took to hospital but the child died, and Wahba sued H & N Prescription Center, which owned Zuckerman’s (Cheeseman, 2013). Hence, manufacturers and business men should ensure that they protect consum...