2Memorandum: Sonya Shazam & CamilleDate: November 21, 2016To: P. StramiFrom: Leslie Manoukian, ParalegalRe: Contract Issues Client Sonya Shazam vs. Camille Sonya Shazam is the owner and lead seamstress for Shazam Clothing Industries has worked with Camille before this incident with no issues. Sonya is traditionally paid 25% of the order as adown payment. During the last visit from Camille she placed an order for 500 sweaters with matching hats. Each sweater is to be numbered and Candie Cardigan’s (Cardware, Inc) sewn intothe label and the hats to have the matching number and signature. Sonya accepted the offer from Camille and agreed to make each sweater and hat (as a pair) for $100 a set. Camille agreed and picked the color yarn and exact dye lots and wrote them down as requested by Sonya. Camille forgot to give Sonya the 25% down and once the order was complete gave Camille an invoice forpayment marked “Payment due upon Receipt”. Camille decided the sweaters and hats would not be profitable and changed her mind.
Unit 2 Andrea WaltonDate: December 22, 2015To: Candie Cardigan, CEOCARDWARE Inc.From: Mrs. Andrea WaltonRe: Negligence Requirements and Potential Defenses To Myra’s ClaimRegarding the situation the company has come across with the situation of the modeling event, there is a few things that could be potential defenses to Myra’s claim. Myra was able to file a claim because one or more of the elements of a cause of action in tort for negligence was broken.Those elements are; “a duty to use ordinary care, breach of that duty, a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury and resulting damage.” (2012, Miller) Myra’s claim is that Cardigan did not use ordinary care which resulted in injury and damage. The first potential defense to Myra’s claim is that there was a wrinkle in the carpet causing Cardigan to fall, which lead to her falling onto the judges. Myra and the other judges knew that