Involuntary Restraint Problem

Involuntary Restraint Problem

Assume that you are an attorney who represents Freda Ford in a suit for false imprisonment brought by her, a twenty‐one year old student, Freda Ford, against Thrifty Repair Shop. Freda brought her VW bug into Thrifty Repair for its 500,000 mile check‐up. Freda told the manager of Thrifty to do whatever they needed to do to get her trusty vehicle running like new. Freda assumed that it only needed to be tuned‐up – spark plugs, check the belts, etc., which she thought would cost about fifty dollars. When Freda returned the next day to pick up her car, Thrifty had replaced the engine and the transmission. The car now ran like new, but the price for the repairs was $3000.00. Freda was flabbergasted. She only had fifty dollars on her person and another fifty dollars in the bank. She explained this to the manager and asked if she could work out a payment plan. This did not sit well with the manager who exploded and went on a profanity‐laced rant about irresponsible kids. This brought the attention of five overall‐wearing, oil‐covered Thrifty mechanics who surrounded Freda and in unison chanted, “we want our money.” Freda felt very afraid. The manager would not consider a payment plan, but rather stood between Freda and the VW, all the while repeating loudly that she was in legal trouble, and that they did not let customers leave who did not first pay the repair bill. This standoff lasted about twenty minutes. The manager continued to yell and the other employees continued to appear menacing, at least to Freda. Finally, Freda, being young and nimble, made a break for the door. The employees, all over forty years old, could not catch her. So, as it now stands, Thrifty still has the car and Freda has a plan to redeem it. She has brought a suit for false imprisonment and has asked for $3000.00 in damages, plus attorney’s fees. The court has asked for pre‐trial briefs from both parties that argue the merits of their positions. The case will be decided on whether Freda was involuntarily restrained. Please write an IRAAC as the attorney for Freda, using Hoffman v. Clinic Hospital, 197 S.E. 161 (N.C. 1938), which is attached, to define the rule and to use for analogous reasoning. The court has defined the Issue: whether Freda was involuntarily restrained. Write a complete IRAAC in support of the position that Freda was involuntarily restrained. Here are some things to keep in mind for this assignment: • Issue: The issue has been provided. Please use it exactly as is. • Rule: you must brief the Hoffman case in order to find the rule and use it as the rule in your IRAAC • Analogous Case: You must use the Hoffman case as the analogous case (A1 section) • Argument/Application: The argument (A2 section) consists of comparing the facts of the Freda case with facts of Hoffman. If you want the same holding as Hoffman, you must argue that the Freda Ford facts are similar enough to get the same holding. If you want the opposite holding from Hoffman, you distinguish Freda facts from the Hoffman case facts. • Conclusion: Give the conclusion – just the bare bones and then add a few Freda facts as support. • * Involuntary Restraint is NOT the same as False Imprisonment – although there is some overlap. The court only wants you to argue the issue of involuntary restraint – do NOT mention false imprisonment in your IRAAC.*