Question Description

Answer the following questions based upon your assigned readings and class materials. PLEASE CITE YOUR SOURCES (including the text and slides). Please be advised that by relying on material outside the course may give information that is not as discussed or presented in class and will not provide additional credit.

Your answers must be in complete sentences and free of typographical errors

. Your writing assignment must be saved as either as WORD documents or in PDF, with doublespaced, 1” margins. The assignment must be well written and professional in appearance. Your completed assignment must be uploaded onto Blackboard for submission. NO OTHER FORMATS WILL BE ACCEPTED.






The rule will be the applicable law to answer the identified issue, including its elements, if relevant. The reasoning must apply the facts from the fact pattern to the law (rule) and its applicable elements and/or exceptions.

1. The plaintiff, Amir Peleg, is a gay Jewish male of Israeli national origin. He worked at Neiman Marcus store in Beverly Hills from December 28, 2005-February 21, 2008. The store is owned by the defendant, Nieman Marcus Group, Inc. Peleg worked in the fragrances department and performed his duties in an exemplary manner. Peleg alleges that on February 21, 2008, he was discharged because of his national origin, religion, and sexual orientation in violation of California Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA).1 Neiman Marcus responded to the complaint with a motion to compel arbitration of the entire case.

The company at the time of hiring, Peleg, provided him with its “Mandatory Arbitration Agreement.” Peleg asserts that the arbitration agreement is illusory and therefore, unenforceable. Peleg relies on the following language:


All case summaries were drafted by McGraw Hill 2018

“This Agreement to arbitrate shall survive the termination of the employeremployee relationship . . . and shall apply to any covered Claim whether it arises or is asserted during or after termination of the Covered Employee’s employment . . . This Agreement can be amended, modified, or revoked in writing by the Company at any time, but with thirty (30) days’ advance notice . . . However, any amendment, modification or revocation will have no effect on any Claim that was filed for arbitration prior to the effective date of such amendment, modification or revocation.

1. As the judge, what do you decide? Is the contract illusory? Explain your reasoning in the shortened case brief format.

NOTE: To have a full analysis, you must apply the facts to the rule.

2. The parties’ marriage was dissolved on August 27, 2010. The parties had an agreement which the court incorporated into its judgment of dissolution. On February 11, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion to Open the Judgment, alleging that he was subjected to continuous threatening and harassing behavior by Plaintiff which resulted in his concession to the terms of the Separation Agreement, that was incorporated into the judgment.

Defendant claimed that he suffered from Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHA) for years and was therefore, more susceptible to manipulation, coercion and duress than the average reasonable person.

Defendant was diagnosed with ADHD in 2012. He returned to his therapist in 2015 asking about the effect of the ADHD would have on his life. The therapist did not know him in 2010, but explained that adults with ADHD are usually more susceptible to manipulation and coercion than someone without ADHD.

At the time leading up to the divorce, Defendant explained that Plaintiff was diagnosed with a life-threatening illness. Three months later, they separated and then she filed the legal action. Plaintiff hired an attorney who drafted a proposal for settlement. Plaintiff suggested that he didn’t need an attorney and that they can use a mediator or her attorney to facilitate a settlement. Defendant DID hire an attorney who advised him not to sign the settlement agreement.

2. Do you think the court found sufficient elements for fraud that it would reopen the case? Why or why not?

NOTE: To have a full analysis, you must apply the facts to the rule.

3. Vincent Simmons appeals from the trial court’s order awarding his wife, Dorothy Simmons, a one-half interest in land that he inherited from his parents. Vincent contends that the property is non-marital and therefore, should have remained his separate property (and not subject to the divorce proceeding between him and his wife).

All case summaries were drafted by McGraw Hill 2018

Vincent and Dorothy were married October 9, 1976. On April 11, 1995, Vincent’s mother put her land, in Trust, conveying her interest in the land, upon death, to her children. Vincent’s mother died on April 1, 1999, but the property remained in Trust for several years after her death.

After Vincent’s mother’s death, Dorothy, became concerned that she would not receive an interest in the property if Vincent died before her. Dorothy hired an attorney who drafted an Affidavit for Vincent to sign that read (in part):

I have been married to my wife, Dorothy Simmons, for 25 years. It is my intention, through this Affidavit, to convey to my wife marital interest in said real property [Vincent’s mother’s property]. If I should die prior to the above-stated Trust being dissolved, then my said wife shall be entitled to her legal marital interest in said real property.

The Trust was distributed to Vincent in November 2002 and Dorothy filed for a divorce in February 2003. The parties agreed on all terms for the divorce, except on the property previously owned by Vincent’s mother. Vincent argues that the Affidavit is not a contract because it lacks consideration and therefore, there is no contract. Dorothy says that her continued marriage to Vincent was the consideration to support the contract.

3. Do you think there was a contract? What rule applies?

NOTE: To have a full analysis, you must apply the facts to the rule.