1. King v. RLDS – Relationships Who’s involved and what are their positions RLDS Owner Tri-Cote Prime Contractor King Sub Contractor

2. King v. RLDS – Contracts What were the promises? RLDSTri-C King Pay $448K Fix Asbestos Pay $448K Fix Asbestos Pay $56K Supervise

3. King v. RLDS Performance and Breakdown? King does extra work ($7K) at RLDS’s direction. RLDS finds King’s work unsatisfactory. King is fired.

4. King I (King v. Tri-C & RLDS) Count I Defendants Tri-Cote RLDS Theories Tort? & Contract? v. Both D’s QM v. RLDS ($7K) Count II Irrelevant Count III Defendants? RLDS Not Tri-Cote Theory Interference with King’s ability to complete contract with Tri-C.

5. King I (King v. Tri-C & RLDS) What happened before trial? King waived all tort claims. What motions did King file at close of evidence? Motion to amend to conform to evidence & assert 3 rd party beneficiary contract theory How did Court rule on that motion Denied What then happened re Count I Re RLDS Ct dismissed big claim since RLDS not party to contract Let $7K QM claim go to jury which ruled for King Re Tri-Cote Jury awards $42K What happened to Count II Ct dismissed since RLDS not party to contract What happened to Count III Ct dismissed on basis that it is a tortious interference claim and King had waived right to assert tort claims. Remember earlier refusal to allow amendment to assert 3rd party beneficiary contract theory.

6. King II (King v. RLDS Only) Who are the parties? P – King D – RLDS What are King’s theories? 3rd party beneficiary Tortious interference D (RLDS) raises collateral estoppel as a defense On what issue(s) was D asserting estoppel? (Hint: the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t tell you) Have elements of collateral estoppel been met in this case: Identical issue Judgment on the merits PTB a party or in privity with a party in earlier case Full & fair opportunity No inequity Why weren’t the issues “identical”? What was the issue on which preclusion was asserted? Was it an issue in King I? Was it decided in King I? What issue was decided in King I? Some thoughts about Missouri’s “identical issue” requirement for collateral estoppel “Necessarily and unambiguously decided” “issues of ultimate fact” “Essential to decision” (see n. 4)

7. King II (King v. RLDS Only) Res Judicata Defense What’s the basic idea behind res judicata? Why would court’s adopt res judicata? Does the system work better with it or without it? Why? Elements of res judicata in King? Were PTB & PAP parties in King I? Could King have asserted claims in King I? Do the King II claims arise out of same acts, conduct, or transactions as King I claims? Was King I decided by valid final judgment on the merits? Same transaction standard “whether parties, subject matter and evidence necessary to sustain the claim are the same in both actions” What does that mean? What is court trying to figure out?

8. Res Judicata Defense What’s the basic idea behind res judicata? Why would courts adopt res judicata? King II (King v. RLDS Only) Elements of res judicata in King? Were PTB & PAP parties in King I? Could King have asserted claims in King I? Do the King II claims arise out of same acts, conduct, or transactions as King I claims? Was King I decided by valid final judgment on the merits? Same transaction standard Basic Formulation: “Same act, conduct, or transaction” Alternative: “Whether parties, subject matter and evidence necessary to sustain the claim are the same in both actions” What does alternate mean?

9. Could have been brought standard Speculative or unripe claims Jurisdictional problems King II (King v. RLDS Only) The problem of “valid, final judgments on the merits” Meaning of validity Meaning of finality Meaning of “on the merits” Res Judicata v. Collateral Estoppel The Baffling “Four Identities” Identity of thing sued for Identity of the causes of action Identity of persons and parties Identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made

10. Could have been brought standard Speculative or unripe claims Jurisdictional problems King II (King v. RLDS Only) The problem of “valid, final judgments on the merits” Meaning of validity Meaning of finality Meaning of “on the merits” Res Judicata v. Collateral Estoppel The Baffling “Four Identities” Identity of thing sued for Identity of the causes of action Identity of persons and parties Identity of the quality of the person for or against whom the claim is made