Law Discussion Cases
Discussion Case 1 – Hatfield & McCoy
Hatfield leased a farm from McCoy, which Hatfield used to grow heirloom vegetables that he sold in a local farmer’s market. One day, one of the irrigation pumps on the farm broke and Hatfield ordered a new pump from Biggie Equipment Company. Hatfield told Biggie that he was McCoy’s tenant and that he had authority to purchase the new pump on McCoy’s behalf. McCoy knew nothing about the broken pump or the purchase. Biggie installed the new pump and sent McCoy a bill for $4,000. McCoy refused to pay the bill, denying any liability for the pump, claiming Hatfield’s purchase was unauthorized.
Is McCoy liable for the bill for the pump? If so, why? If not, why not?
Be sure to discuss this case using a full IRAC analysis. Be sure to cite your references.
Discussion Case 2 – Cars, Inc
Cars, Inc. (Cars) has several truck and car manufacturing plants throughout the United States. All its plants are unionized. Clem, a fervent Seventh Day Adventist, works for Cars in its plant in the Southwest. Because he lacks seniority in his job, he was assigned to the evening shift on the production line, which required him to work on Friday nights. Clem’s religion prohibited him from working from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday, so he failed to show up for work at those times. Eventually, Clem was fired for his continuing Friday night absences from work. Accommodating Clem would have required Cars to use a floater to replace Clem every Friday night. This would mean that Cars would have to forgo using the floater elsewhere or hire another floater. In addition, more repairs and lower efficiency are likely when a floater is used on the line.
Clem sued Cars, claiming religious discrimination. Cars defended claiming that Clem was not fired for religious discrimination but for absenteeism.
Will Clem succeed in his discrimination suit?
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A GOOD DISCOUNT 
This question first appeared on Write My School Essay
