this is my case: Morrison wanted to sell a certain parcel of land to Thoelke. He decided to make an offer by sending Thoelke a letter. When Thoelke received the letter, he decided to accept. He wrote a letter to Morrison saying that he would buy the land at the price quoted in the letter. Thoelke then mailed the letter. Before he received the letter from Thoelke, Morrison changed his mind and withdrew the offer to Thoelke. When Thoelke found out Morrison would not sell the land to him, he sued. Was Thoelke’s letter a valid acceptance, binding Morrison to the sale? Explain. Morrison v. Thoelke, 155 So.2d 889 (FL).

The cases in the textbook are what lawyers call squibs. The squibs are short summaries of the case and not the full court opinion about the case. You will be able to do an internet search under the name of the case and find the full court opinion, which will have much more information than the squib in the textbook. 3. Using the information in the full case opinion, you will be required to do the following a. (up to 25 points) Submit a paper of 500 to 750 words on the case. The paper must treat the following areas: - what are the facts of the case? - what is the law that applies in this situation? - what is the issue? That is a statement of how the law applies to the facts of the case - discussion - make an argument that supports a particular outcome in the case. NOTE – you do not have to agree with the court’s opinion. Feel free to come to a different conclusion than the court did, if you think the law and facts support you. - state your conclusion. b. (up to 25 points) Be prepared to engage in an in-class discussion with the professor about this case. You should be very familiar with the law and facts and should NOT be referring to the textbook, the case or your notes during this discussion. The discussion will include alternate factual and legal situations that will require some on-your-feet thinking. Sample paper discussing this case. Case: Myers v. Forest City Enterprises Paper submitted by Suzie Student March 1, 2018 Chapter 6, Case no. 8, textbook page 138 GENERAL SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CASE: negligent torts PROCEDURAL POSTURE: This is an appeal from a trial court decision on a motion for summary judgment. The trial court had found in favor of the defendant, Forest City and the appeal was filed by the plaintiff, Anna Mae Myers. A motion for summary judgment takes place before a trial is held, to determine if, assuming everything the Plaintiff says is true, Plaintiff still has a right to recover. The court can consider the pleadings filed by the parties, and the discovery (interrogatories and depositions) done by the parties. In this case, it appears from the opinion that the parties had engaged in some discovery, although the extent of discovery cannot be determined from the opinion. However, there were some photographs of the scene which were apparently considered by the court. FACTS: Plaintiff/appellant sustained injuries in a fall at the entrance to Canton Centre Mall which is owned and operated by appellee. Appellant fell on December 26, 1990. There had been no snowfall for several days, no precipitation of any kind that day, and the parking lot was only slightly damp. Appellant offered photographs of the sidewalk on which she had fallen, showing that there was an accumulation of ice on the sidewalk. Defendant/Appellee admitted that it had exclusive control over the premises and that it had undertaken to clean snow and ice from the premises on a daily basis throughout the winter. ISSUES: Was Forest City negligent in maintaining the sidewalks around its shopping center? Was there enough evidence on the record to make a determination about negligence of Forest City? LAW: In Ohio, a land owner has no duty to its business invitees to remove natural accumulation of snow and ice from exterior walkways, however, if it undertakes to do so, it may not create a dangerous or unnatural accumulation of snow or ice, or be actively negligent in permitting one to exist on its property. In cases involving an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow, a plaintiff must show that the defendant created or aggravated the hazard, that the defendant knew or should have known of the hazard, and that the hazardous condition was substantially more dangerous than it would have been in the natural state. Melting snow that refreezes into ice is natural, not an unnatural accumulation of ice. DISCUSSION: If Forest City undertook to clean the sidewalks, and no new precipitation fell, then certainly the ice on which plaintiff fell must have been an unnatural or man-made condition. Appellant deposed several of appellee's employees, whose testimony demonstrated that appellee did undertake to clear the sidewalks every morning. One of those employees, Robin Cooper, deposed that perhaps passing automobiles had thrown water up on the sidewalk, where it had frozen. The record does demonstrate an issue of fact regarding the source of the accumulation of ice, and whether it was natural or unnatural. Plaintiff failed to present any evidence that appellee had notice of this hazard. The record shows the contrary, namely, that appellee could not constantly police the area and that the ice could have built up even though appellee was not negligent in its attempt to maintain the property. DECISION: I think that the court reached the wrong decision. Only a trier of fact or a jury can determine if the nature of the ice accumulation was natural or man-made, which appears to be the key part of the negligence test in Ohio. Since summary judgment comes before a trial, it was incorrect to dispose of the case before trial.