Peter Pierce contracted with Danny Do Paint, Inc., owned and operated by Danny Pacheco, to repaint his 4000-square foot home within sixty (60) days, using the highest quality Benjamin Williams paint guaranteed to last for 20 years. Peter paid an additional $2000.00 for the higher quality paint, for a total contract price of $10,000.00. Danny was to provide all supplies, including the paint. Peter selected a custom color that was a mixture of five other colors, in prescribed formulaic amounts. Because of the complexity of the paint mixture, it was suggested that all of the paint be purchased at the same time, from the same Benjamin Williams location, to avoid any color inconsistencies. Danny agreed to follow this suggestion. The provision was included as a material term, in the contract. Danny Do Paint had a solid reputation in the community. Peter selected his paint color and left the job in Danny’s capable hands. Or, so Peter thought.
Instead of pressure cleaning the house before commencing the paint job, which is industry standard but was not specifically delineated in the contract, Danny proceeded to paint over the existing paint, which was extremely dirty, with patches that were peeling. Danny missed several days of work, maintaining that he was getting migraines from the paint fumes. Danny kept telling Peter that he was under medical care for his headaches, and that he was doing the best he could on serious narcotics for the migraines. Danny was not tracking to complete the paint job within the contractual period.
Danny also did not purchase all of the paint at one time, from Benjamin Williams. Danny ran out of paint three-quarters of the way through the painting of the home. Danny, short on time, asked Peter to pick the paint up, that Danny ordered, on his way home from work. Peter agreed, and went to Benjamin Williams. When Peter arrived, he realized that Danny had opted for the lowest quality Benjamin Williams paint, which was not what Peter selected, nor what Peter paid for.
The Benjamin Williams paint manager, Nicholas Thompson, told Peter that Walt, another customer, told him, that Danny said he could not afford to pay for the better quality paint for Peter’s job, because his brother had a serious accident and he needed to help support his family while he was out of work. Walt also told Nicholas that Danny said he felt awful about misrepresenting the paint quality to Peter, but that he “had to do what he had to do, for his family.”
Peter was furious, and confronted Danny about the series of breaches of their agreement. Peter informed Danny that he was fired, and advised him not to return to his property. Danny continued to show up daily. Peter sued Danny Do Paint, Inc, naming Danny individually, as well, for breach of contract and trespass to land, a tort.
During trial, the following occurred:
(A) Nicholas Thompson, the paint manager, testified that Walt told him that Danny told Walt that he was not going to buy the more expensive paint to paint Peter’s house because he had to help his brother’s family because of his brother’s accident.
(B) Danny’s doctor, Dr. Kaufman, testified that Danny did make two doctor’s appointments during the duration of the contract. Dr. Kaufman testified that Danny came in for headaches, and that he prescribed a non-narcotic that would not interfere with his ability to drive, or work. Danny did not sign a medical release or authorize Dr. Kaufman to share information about his medical care. Dr. Kaufman also testified that, while Danny was at the appointment, without prompting, Danny said “I can’t believe I messed up Peter’s house to this extent. I don’t even know where to begin to fix this mess. With everything going on with my brother, that is all I can think about”.
Objections were raised to the testimony. The judge allowed all of the testimony. You have been asked to prepare an Internal Memorandum, using Florida Statutes, including the Florida Evidence Code, addressing the testimony that was admitted, to evaluate the basis for an appeal. The Florida Statutes can be searched here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm
The Florida Evidence Code can be searched here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0090/0090.html
Your research should focus on hearsay and privilege.
Include all legally relevant facts that provide the foundation for the issues.
State all issues, phrased as questions based on the assignment directions and provided information. Each issue should be separately numbered.
Include all law that is the basis for the analysis. If referring to a part of a rule, you should include the specific part(s) that will be used in the analysis.
Fully apply the law to the facts to provide the basis for the conclusion. Connect legally relevant facts to the specific language from the law, breaking down application of the law to the facts, step by step.
Each part of the law is a component. Each component that applies to the issue should be addressed in your analysis.
This is the longest, and most detailed section of IRAC, and of the Internal Memorandum. Analysis should be fully developed for each issue.
Number your analysis to align with the numbering of your issues above. You should have the same number of analysis sections as you do issues.
Reach firm conclusions, supported by the analysis, for each issue. Number your conclusions separately, by issue. You should have the same number of conclusions as you do issues and analysis.