Getting ready to go back to December
Evidence Law
Over dinner and a glass of wine, Taylor’s good friend, Este, tells her that she suspects her husband is cheating. Este expresses that she would like revenge on her husband, but is unsure of what actions to take. Taylor tells Este not to worry about it.
A few days later, Este’s husband mysteriously goes missing. He was last seen with his secretary. When questioned, the secretary tearfully confesses that she and Este’s husband had been seeing each other for the past year. She also tells the police that right before Este’s husband went missing, the two of them went on a secluded picnic in the woods beside the local lake. The husband’s body was never found.
Three months after the disappearance, Taylor releases a song on Spotify in which she seemingly confesses to murdering Este’s husband by drowning him in the local lake. The song’s lyrics, which start with Este’s suspicion about the affair and end with a plan to frame the secretary for the disappearance, specifically mentions facts that were known to the police but have not been released to the public. However, the song also deviates from real life in certain ways. For example, in the song, Este was murdered by her husband, but in real life she has since moved on to marry a very wealthy man.
There is no other evidence tying Taylor to the husband’s disappearance. At the secretary’s criminal trial, defence counsel wants to introduce a) Taylor’s initial statement to Este to “not worry about it” and b) the song lyrics. Advise Taylor as to the likelihood of each of these statements being admitted.
Contract Law
Completely unrelated to the missing person allegations, Taylor is preparing for her upcoming Canadian tour and has made a series of sequential tweets:
“Canadians who sign up for presale will get a seat in the upcoming shows.”
“There’s only a small fee!”
“Anyone named Kelsey can also get in for free.”
Unfortunately, on the day of the pre-sale, ardent American fans swooped in, jammed up the ticket-purchasing website, and bought all the tickets for the Canadian leg of the Eons Tour. Tickets now retail starting at $2500 for even a partially-obstructed seat.
Canadian fans are now in an uproar, and fans are looking to sue for a breach of contract. One fan, Kelsea, is particularly outraged, arguing that the tweets definitely constituted a contract, and that Taylor should be liable for a breach of contract. Kelsea argues that the first tweet constituted a guarantee that Canadians who signed up would be able to get into the website to buy tickets. She also wants to argue that she should get the tickets for free based on the third tweet. Taylor’s lawyer, Mo Ped, counters that the three tweets were separate and had no relation to each other. Additionally, Mo argues that tweets cannot form a contract as fans knew all too well that Taylor would never make such an offer.
Please discuss the likelihood of success of Kelsea and Mo’s arguments.
Bonus question for upper year students: If Taylor is indeed liable, do the American fans hold the tickets on constructive trust for the Canadian fans?
