Uniforms United Vs. Button Barn Summary

Statement of Issue: The issue in the case Uniforms United vs. Button Barn is the false imprisonment committed by Marvin Merchant, from Button Barn, against Dan Driver, from Uniforms United. According to court law, false imprisonment is defined as deliberate unlawful detaining of someone without their consent. Although shopkeeper’s have the privilege to detain person’s they suspect of stealing from them, this lawful privilege only lasts for a reasonable amount of time. Merchant, however, detained Driver for an unreasonable amount of time, resulting in an $8,000 loss for Uniforms United. False imprisonment is also shown through threat to a person that forces them to stay. Court law proves that this threat can also be to that person’s liberty,

This is due to two things. First, there are multiple necessary parts to false imprisonment. To meet a claim of false imprisonment, there must be a willful dentition. This detention must be unlawful, and also without consent from the person being detained. Merchant willfully detained Driver when he believed that Driver was stealing from him. This detention was both unlawful and without the consent of Driver. There are two distinct reasons why Driver’s false imprisonment claim is true. First, there was a threat to his liberty by Merchant threatening to call the police. Second, although Merchant originally had shopkeeper’s privilege, this privilege only allows Merchant to detain Driver for a reasonable time period. First, Driver was detained. Although there was no threat of physical harm, there was a threat to his liberty if he left. Merchant threatened to call the police on Driver, which constitutes a threat to his liberty and freedom. If there is a threat to the person being detained, this contributes to the false imprisonment claim. Furthermore, Merchant originally had shopkeeper’s privilege, but lost it after detaining Driver for an unreasonable amount of time.

Summary of the