1. (TCOs D, E, F) Frank Jones is a college student who had a plow attached to his jeep so he could earn extra money plowing during the winter. Jones was under contract to plow the driveways of Mr. Washington and Ms. Adams, two neighbors down the street. John Smith lives between Washington and Adams. Jones took it upon himself to plow Smith’s lot the seven times this past winter when there were storms and when he plowed the other two lots. Jones had never spoken to Smith about it, and Smith never objected. In the spring, Jones personally appeared at Smith’s house and presented him with a bill. Smith refused to pay Jones, stating that, “he never agreed to any contract.” That statement was made after Jones presented him with a bill of $600, which he calculated as the reasonable value of his services. After Smith’s obnoxious response, Jones yelled: “I will see you in court!”
What legal arguments could Jones make to enforce his $600 bill? What legal arguments could Smith make to avoid liability? (Points : 15)
2. (TCOs B, C, G, I) Lonestar Trucking, a large freight carrier servicing the Southwest, learns from reading in the industry trade magazine that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has proposed a regulation change. The regulation, proposed pursuant to a statute that restricts drivers from operating/driving a truck for more than twelve (12) hours a day, will now require drug testing of any driver involved in an accident. The regulation was proposed due to political pressure from Mothers Against Impaired Driving (MAID), a group dedicated to eliminating deaths due to people driving while impaired. Lonestar Trucking is concerned, not just about the costs of implementing such a regulation, but how it will comply with its requirements since accidents often occur far from their base of operations. Lonestar Trucking’s employees and their union are also very upset with the proposal. They are concerned that the field drug tests used by police officers are notorious for giving “false positive” results, and that the proposed regulation will require that a test be given even when “the other diver” is clearly at fault.