Wisconsin Litigation Legal Questions

No. Winston is a good faith purchaser who had nothing to do with the deal between McCaslin and Graham. Graham got what she wanted for the sale of her CD player. The fact that McCaslin made a profit is irrelevant. Graham is upset because she probably figures she could have gotten more. Is the contract void because Graham was a minor (under 18)?? Doubtful because Graham was not "injured" by the deal. She got exactly what she asked for. Had McCaslin elected not to sell the CD player, would Graham be seeking a rescission? Doubtful, because the facts indicate that the only reason she is asking for a rescission is because McCaslin sold it for more than what he paid for it. Sounds like sour grapes on the part of Graham and a good economic move on the part of McCaslin. Winston is an innocent purchaser in good faith. Deal is closed.... Read Answer

As written, it almost, or perhaps more than almost, appears the poster is planning, in advance, to ditch the engagement ring upon receipt but seeks to cover the bases regarding personal liability for the action. If that appearance is accurate, it seems to at least potentially embody larceny by trick. This could of course create criminal law consequences for the person seeking an item under false pretenses, in addition to any potential civil law consequences.... Read Answer

Based on the contract language you quote, it would seem the landlord has a contractual indemnification claim. Whether or not a court will strictly enforce it is going to depend upon the interaction of the law and the facts. Depending upon the scope of the litigation, you'll need to analyze the cost/benefit considerations involved in fighting on two fronts versus cooperating with the landlord on the defense of the case against you both. Contract litigation can be complex, and you cannot make a decision like this based upon information received from a free general information website.... Read Answer

It is impossible to answer your question with the limited information you have provided. First, how did the accident  happen?  What did you slip on?  Do you know how long the object had been on the floor?  Was the object open & obvious?  All these questions and more will help to determine if Wal-Mart was liable for the object on the floor. If they are not liable then you likely don't have a case.  Did Wal-Mart know about the object on the floor or had it been there long enough that they should have known about it - that is probably the key here.  If Wal-Mart is liable, then to determine the "worth" of your case - well there is really no formula.  Usually it is the cost of all your medical bills plus lost wages plus any estimated future medicals and then add some in for pain and suffering, etc.  There really is no formula (that I am aware of anyways).  However, I would recommend that you actually consult with an attorney prior to accepting any settlement from Wal-Mart because once you settle, that's it.  You are bound by the settlement and will have released any future claims against Wal-Mart, even if you later determine that you have more injuries or will have more future medicals.  Best of luck. NOTE:  This response is general in nature and should not be considered legal advice.  No attorney-client relationship exists or is formed by this response. ... Read Answer