|
|
|
|
|
Pat Parker Case Study
|
|
|
1. Abstract Pat Parker was a law school graduate who started a consulting firm that specialized in conducting opposition research and writing reports for political candidates, primarily for the Democratic Party. This specific case is about how Pat Parker developed a research report for Democratic nominee, Dale Jackson for the statewide Attorney General position. Two years later, representatives of the State Academy of Trial Lawyers wanted to buy the same research document on the Republican Attorney General, Terry Paine in what Parker believed to be an effort to inoculate their candidate during an upcoming election. Parker wasn’t sure how to proceed. There was the potential to be arrested for reselling the information, plus it could jeopardize the political party’s candidate. There are several legal issues to be concerned with in this case. Would Pat Parker violate either contract or federal copyright laws by selling the research or the associated postcards to the State Academy of Trial Lawyers or anyone else who desired to purchase them? Could Parker sell the research to the State Academy of Trial Lawyers without violating the $500 maximum funding limit under the Florida Campaign Finance Statute? Would Parker be violating the Florida Voluntary Code of Fair Campaign Practices if he sold a report generated for one party to the other party? Also, if the items were resold to a third party, would Parker & Associates be violating any particular codes of ethics? 2. Legal Analysis The first legal issue to be analyzed is whether Parker would have violated contract law if all or any portion of the research document had been sold to the State Academy of Trial Lawyers? To determine if Parker would be violating the contract, a valid contract must first exist. Three elements of a valid contract must be proven, including competent parties, consideration, and mutual assent or meeting of the minds. · Element 1: Competent Parties. For a valid contract, each side must have the capacity to enter into it. This case provides that Parker is a competent individual who willfully accepted an offer to conduct research for the Democratic nominee, also a competent party. We can conclude that both parties had the capacity to enter into a binding contract and element one is satisfied. · Element 2: Consideration. In order to hold both parties to the contract, each must give something in exchange. Money is the most common form of compensation. The Democratic nominee agreed to pay Parker $25,000 plus expenses to research their opponent, and Parker agreed to provide a report in return. The exchange of a completed report for money satisfies the second element of consideration. · Element 3: Meeting of the Minds, or Mutual Assent. This means that both sides must fully understand the details, rights, and obligations of the contract. Exhibit 8 of the case study, the agreement between Parker and the Democratic Party, provides clear, concise details as to what each party was required to do to satisfy their part of the contract. Therefore, a mutual assent or meeting of the minds clearly occurred when both parties signed the agreement, and the third element was satisfied. Since all valid contract elements were satisfied, it can be concluded that the contract between Parker and the Democratic nominee was valid. The original agreement, Exhibit 8, with the Democratic Party candidate specifically stated the “use of reports” which essentially said that the research and the publications used in the research shall not be used “for any other purpose, campaign, or person” and that the research was to be used “during the present campaign cycle only.” This type of bilateral contract basically promised that the two parties would maintain the terms of the contract between them only. If the research had been sold to another party during the campaign in addition to who it was originally created for, then Parker would have been in breech of contract and the Democratic Party would have every right to sue for damages. However, the report that the State Academy of Trial Lawyers wanted to purchase from Parker was for an upcoming election that would be occurring during a different campaign cycle. The original agreement outlined that Parkers obligation would expire upon the determination of the last election in which the Campaign had qualified its candidate. It did not state that Parker & Associates could not use the research later, only that the campaign couldn’t. Therefore, it would not be a violation of the original agreement terms if Parker decided to sell the original report to the State Academy of Trial Lawyers or to whomever their firm chose to. The second legal issue is whether Parker could sell the research to the State Academy of Trial Lawyers or other interested parties without violating federal copyright law. A copyright offers protection for original works of authorship. Copyright protection affords the author of copyrighted work with specific rights that the authors can give or sell to others or keep for themselves. Possible copyright problems stem from two different items. The fact that the Democratic nominee contracted the work makes it possible that they hold the copyright on the research report.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
