Problem 1:
A national scandal has erupted. Last week, while at her gym, a woman took a picture of one of former President George W. Bush's daughters in the shower with her new cell phone camera, and the picture has been disseminated throughout the world via the world wide web. Outraged, Bush authorized the Federal Commerce Commission to immediately ban the use of all camera cell phones in all public places, including restaurants, health clubs, shopping centers, schools, and on public roads or highways. The FCC responds by enacting the Public Camera Cell Phone Ban. The rule takes effect immediately. The punishments for violating the act are severe---up to a fine of $2000 or imprisoning for 2 months. The Attorney General says the rules are too invasive and refuses to enforce them, so, the FCC immediately repeals the rule, and enacts a new one. The sale of all Camera Cell phones are banned, and any company or dealer found selling them will be fined $10,000 per phone sale. The rule goes into effect immediately. Meanwhile, Bush's daughter has just gotten her own Oprah-like talk show where people who have had their picture taken by a cell phone in an embarrassing way, or were caught in a crime come on stage and discuss their life story. She jokingly has a picture of the WWW naked picture of herself as the background of her stage set...with all the indecent parts blacked out. She is an instant millionaire. The cell phone industry is infuriated. You are their lawyer. They want to know what they can do to fight this rule. You have to decide:
Here what I want to help with,
Part 1: Whether the APA was violated in this case or not If it is how ? If not, explaination of the facts why the FCC actions complied with the APA.
Part 2: What other arguments could I use to prove to the courts that this rule should be repealed saying that, the APA wasn't violated.
Problem 2:
Billy Joel decided he wanted to learn to play the violin for his next set of concerts. He called a violin salesman in New York, and asked if he had any for sale. The salesman stated he had a Stradivarius and a Guarnerius (two famous brands of violins), and offered to sell them to Billy for $80,000 and $24,000, respectively. Billy agreed, over the phone, to purchase the violins from the salesman, and told him he would be in town the next week, to pick them up. Billy didn't show up for two months, and when he entered the store, the salesman wasn't there. His wife, Margaret, was there in the store, however, and she had full knowledge of the deal cut between her husband and Billy. (She'd heard her husband whining, complaining and wailing about Billy not showing up for the last two months - and she was really sick of hearing about it.) Billy asked to see the violins, and Margaret showed him both of them. Billy stated he would agree to pay $65,000 for both of them, and Margaret, knowing that they were counterfeits and only worth $2,000 AND realizing that their house was about to go into foreclosure, agreed to the reduction in price, and sold Billy the two violins for $65,000. She gave him a bill of sale which she wrote out on a note pad on the counter, which said, "Paid in full. Strativarus and Granruius violins. $65,000. Chk # 4301 Billy Joel. Salesperson: Margaret Madoff." The notepad was one she had brought home from their last vacation to Las Vegas and was from The Flamingo hotel there. Billy took home the violins and proceeded to learn to play, albeit very poorly. Meanwhile, the salesman discovers that Margaret sold the violins for less than he had bargained for. He sues Billy Joel for the $39,000 difference, stating that Margaret was not an employee of the store, and had no authority to change the deal he and Billy had made. During the pendency of the suit, and after his next concert, the newspapers stated, "Billy Joel should give up playing the violin! He stinks!" Billy takes his violins to a music store to sell them and discovers they are only worth $2,000 and that they are not Stradivarius and Guarnerius violins, but are instead counterfeits. He wants to counter-sue the salesman and asks you on what basis can he do so.
Here I want to assist me someone to discuss those fact and issues,
Using contract, agency, and any other legal concepts , on what bases can Billy sue the salesman and his wife?
What defenses will they have? Do you think Billy can recover?
Further, will Margaret's husband (his name is Bernard) be able to collect against Billy for the difference in price from the original deal?
Need Explaination, fully as to the why's, wherefore's and why not's for both parties. Use bullet points, and "issue spotting" to assist you in your answer.