Legal Issues
Discussion Board Forum Case Assignment
On the first case, Barney is seeking to contest the foreclosure of his Mountain property as a result of Opie’s defaulting in payment. It would appear that Opie legally has a right to the property as it was left to him by his father Andy. However, ownership of the property was not solely Opie’s. Joint tenancy implies that the property was jointly owned by the owners present at the time of its acquisition. As a result, Barney who is the only remaining joint owner of the property also has a claim to it and therefore a say in what happens to it. Right of ownership grants each owner the right to sell their interest in the property, the right to transfer that ownership or to server the ties of the joint ownership. However, according to Operation of law, the matter of Opie’s ownership of rights to the mountain property may be dismissed on grounds that Joint tenancy with right of survivorship dictates that, should one of the owner’s die, his share of the property is taken up by the remaining owners. No provision for probate is made (The Gale Group Inc., 2008). Barney therefore has the right to challenge the foreclosure of his property as he is the only legal owner. As far as Christianity is concerned, Barney is not obligated to share ownership of the land with Opie. However, it does encourage helping of those in need. In this regard Barney may offer some help to Opie without them necessarily having to share ownership of the property.
In the case of Ernest who has settled on Barney’s property for over twenty years openly without being driven from it, Ernest, the desseisor, does have a case in court through adverse possession of the mountain property. He has occupied the land openly fro twenty years and seems to openly and in a hostile manner defend the land. He also has occupied the land and used it as though it were his own. In such a case, the law allows for ownership of the land to transfer to him (Law of property Act, 1925). Ernest’s use of the property is open, notorious and continuous, by law he automatically gains ownership. The Supreme Court can use its jurisdiction over this matter to award either full tenancy to Ernest or Joint tenancy between the two. Barney would therefore be advised to come into an out of court settlement with Ernest where both benefit. As a Christian brother, it would also be moral for him to share the property with Ernest who has known it as his home for twenty years .This would demonstrate the Christian virtue of loving other people as oneself ( Mark 12:31, New King James Version).
In 1981 the supreme court of Michigan set a precedent that encouraged the use of eminent domain for economic development across the country. The court’s decision allowed the city of Detroit to condemn 1,400 houses and 140 businesses to make way for a General Motors plant. The provision of jobs and benefits for a community’s economy gets preference here (Microsoft Encarta, 2007). About fourteen years later, in the year 2005, in a case involving a community in Connecticut city of New London, the supreme court determined that fostering development of an area economically is a worthy use of the power of eminent domain, to the extent that it serves a ‘public purpose’. In this particular case, Kelo et al v. City of New London, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘public purpose’ seizures are provided for under the public use requirement of the 5th amendment. New London had argued that the land would be used to reinvigorate the economy of the region through provision of jobs. Judgment of what constitutes or qualifies as ‘public purpose’ was deferred to the jurisdiction of local governments (Microsoft Encarta, 2007). In the matter of the seizure of Barney’s beach house for the construction of a family resort, the state needs to prove that the construction of the family resort would indeed prove as useful to the community as alleged. If this is found to have sufficient weight in court, then Barney has no choice but to allow for eminent domain to take its course. The constitution of the United States however stipulates that such seizures must be accompanied by just compensation. He would be advised to accept monetary compensation. In this matter the law favors common good over the private property laws of a few individuals. It needs to be however proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Nickelodeon centre would be of sufficient benefit as to warrant eminent domain action.
In the matter of the stealing of Barney’s car by the restaurant’s valet, the restaurant bears full liability over the theft of the car by Carl, who at the time of stealing the vehicle was miss-leadingly dressed in the restaurants uniform and was actually an employee of the restaurant. There is no way that Barney could tell that Carl was not on duty. His presence at the restaurant’s, in full uniform implied the endorsement of that presence by the restaurant. It is the duty of the restaurant to ensure that they repossess all property that could be used to act in its name when such property shouldn’t be in use-in this case the uniform. Whatever actions Carl took, while acting in his capacity as the restaurant’s valet, reflect on the restaurant. It should therefore legally bear liability for the same. As a result of this negligence, Barney and Thelma Lou were deceived. Barney therefore has recourse in law against the restaurant, to ask for the redemption of his vehicle.
The uniform commercial code protects the buyer of the vehicle from any liability because he purchased the vehicle in good faith. In commercial law, and under sections 1-201(9) and 2-403 of the uniform commercial code, a business person can keep possession of purchased goods or be reimbursed for them, if it is demonstrated that he bought the goods in good faith. The trade must have been fair and honest (Bristow & Seth, 2000). The party that bears liability either due to negligence or otherwise has the legal duty to reimburse the figure of 5,600 dollars. In this case, that party is the Restaurant. Barney is advised as a Christian to try and forgive Carl and to pray for him as the Bible (Matt 5:44, New King James version) encourages Christians to prayer for those that do wrong.
References
The Gale Group Inc. (2008).West’s Encyclopedia of America Law, 2nd Ed.John Bouvier, A Law
Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States (1856).
Bristow, D. I., & Seth, R. (2000). “Good Faith in Negotiations.” Dispute Resolution Journal.
November, Vol.55 (17).
Microsoft Encarta Student [DVD]. (2007) “Eminent Domain”. Redmond, WA: Microsoft
Corporation.
Law of property Act, 1925
