Jones v. Sullivan

Case Assignment You will be arguing the position of the side you were assigned on the Case List. There is no specific formula or model. I would suggest the following: Facts, Law, and Argument. Your first section should be the facts in a light that supports your position. You may make reasonable factual inferences. You may not make up facts. The second part should be what Issue we are arguing about and what the legal test for determining how a court should rule. Then make an argument as to why you should win applying the facts to the law. For example, if you were arguing the Meram vs. McDonald for the guy that made the “offer” you would want to say that he was making a presentation to a crowd. You could infer that as a public speaker, he made jokes to keep the crown involved. That one of those joke was……. Then you explain what the law is, that under the Objective Theory of Contracts, an offer is an offer if the Reasonable Person would think an Offer had been make and explain it a little more. You may also want to make an argument that the Offer wasn’t sufficiently definite. Tell what the rule is. Then explain why you should win applying the facts to the law. 5. Jones paid Sullivan, the chief of the Addison Police Department, $6,400 in exchange for Sullivan's coop-eration in allowing Jones and others to bring marijuana by airplane into the Addison airport without police intervention. Instead of performing the requested ser-vice, Sullivan arrested Jones. The $6,400 was turned over to the district attorney's office and was introduced into evidence in the subsequent trial in which Jones was tried for and convicted of bribery. After his con-viction, Jones assigned his alleged claim to the $6,400 to Melvyn Bruder. Based on the assignment, Bruder brought suit against the state of Texas to obtain posses-sion of the money. Will he be successful?