ipl-logo

Clovis Unified School Case Summary

952 Words4 Pages

In October 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff. Tarasoff’s parents assert that the psychiatrist had a duty to alert the family or Tatiana of Poddar threats. Tarasoff’s parents claim that Dr. Moore warned the police, but the police released him. The court dismissed Tarasoff’s parents action for failure to state against the psychiatrist, police, or the University of California. The court concluded that the police did not have to alert Tarasoff parents. Factual Situation NO 1 Issue: Is Dr. Joe responsible for the death of Cindy? Rule: “A defendant owes a duty of care to all person who are foreseeably endangered by his conduct, with respect to all risks that make the conduct unreasonably dangerous”. (Tarasoff v. Regents …show more content…

Is Dave bound to the bid made. Rule: It was a unilateral mistake and Clovis Unified School District cannot het out of the case, however Dave was unaware of the mistake made by the school. Analysis: Clovis Unified School District needed to build a new gym at Clovis High School. Clovis Unified School District made a mistake and set the work to be done at Willow High School and Dave’s Dry Wall Company was already at location and setup, so he would be able to do the job for less. Dave entered his bid however Clovis Unified School District realized their mistake and sent a letter notifying Dave of the mistake furthermore the letter did not arrive until the day of and the mail person was out sick. Dave did not get to read the letter until it was to late and Clovis Unified School District already accepted the contract. Conclusion: Dave’s Dry Wall Company was misinformed and made a bid without knowing all the facts. Clovis Unified School District corrected the mistake last second and did not alert Dave about the mistake. Dave is not bound by the bid because the the mistake was

More about Clovis Unified School Case Summary

    Open Document