Laurence Dudzik Et Al Critique The Essay And Expl

In this assignment, we will attempt to utilize some of the concepts of legal writing that we will discuss in class. Below you will find an essay that, to put it mildly, needs a bit of work. The wording is verbose and uses “slang”. There is no focus or organization to the essay and the case citations are in the wrong places and in the incorrect format.

Your assignment is to:

1) Critique the essay and explain, point by point, what is wrong with the essay; and

2) Re-write (salvage) the essay in IRAC format. You can assume that the cases cited are at least appropriate for the propositions that they purport to support and you need not find new cases. However, confirming that the appropriate statutes or sections of those cases are cited is important. If necessary, you should find the appropriate statute to cite and cite it.

Here we go…:

This story is replete with fascinating facts and the intricacies that are inherent in the facts of the case make for a great story. The baseball bat was broken from the outset when it was bought by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant should have to return the baseball bat and pay the money back to the plaintiff that plaintiff paid for said bat. The plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken since as soon as the defendant used the bat to play baseball, the bat shattered into a million pieces. Shattering into a million pieces certainly violates the implied warranty of merchantability under the Uniform Commercial Code (“U.C.C.”). INDUSTRIA DE CALCADOS MARTINI LTDA. v. MAXWELL SHOE CO., INC. No. 92-P-1322 APPEALS COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS 36 Mass. App. Ct. 268; 630 N.E.2d 299; 1994 Mass. App. LEXIS 274; 23 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 89 December 20, 1993, Argued March 21, 1994, Decided. Also, there’s a case that expounded upon this issue and told us that a baseball bat can’t crack when it’s used normally. Otherwise, the store has to give back the money to the plaintiff. Laurence Dudzik et al., Plaintiffs, v. Klein’s All Sports, Defendant. SC# 92-390 JUSTICE COURT OF NEW YORK, TOWN OF COLONIE, ALBANY COUNTY 158 Misc. 2d 72; 600 N.Y.S.2d 1013; 1993 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 272; 21 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 592 June 9, 1993, Decided.

The extrapolation that can be clearly drawn from these cases is that if a plaintiff buys a baseball bat, the said bat must be in that condition that was represented to the heretofore named parties. At least, the bat must be in sufficient marketable condition so that the implied warranty owing from the party of the first part to the party of the second part must be sustained. Also, as if those cases weren’t enough, the U.C.C. demands that goods must be in good condition when they are sold. I can’t show exactly where in the U.C.C. it says this, but that’s the general feeling I got from reading the U.C.C.