A little boy came over to my house to sweep my drive. I motioned with my arm for him to leave my property. It was so odd as the young man did not leave. Can you believe

 scenario 1:

A little boy came over to my house to sweep my drive. I motioned with my arm for him to leave my property. It was so odd as the young man did not leave. Can you believe he thought I motioned to go ahead and sweep the drive? I continued to drink my iced tea, and ".boy, did that kid clean the drive for me!" Now he wants to be paid? As if an agreement existed??

"…. young man, you are mistaken. We never had an agreement. I was motioning for you to get off my property and you did not take me seriously. The terms of the agreement never existed. I owe you nothing! Ha, ha, ha…. thanks for the 'free lunch', the drive looks great!"

Question:

Does the homeowner 'owe' the young man for his service, despite 'no agreement' existing? (Is there free lunch in this world??) How much would you 'reasonably' seek as legal counsel for the young man? A reasonable drive cleaning in this city goes for $50, or so the sign in my neighborhood at the intersection now states.

The topic and issue is 'equity'. Please don't just give me a conclusion, but rather support your conclusion with some reasoning and examples.

 scenario 2:

Marcus was arrested for possession of marijuana in a state where it was illegal. The defense at trail is that the highest court in a neighboring state had ruled a similar law invalid, which would be a binding precedent in Marcus' resident state.

• Is Ferguson correct in his belief? 
• Can a state's highest court rule that the law of another state is not binding in its own state? 
• Does a precedent in one state affect the law in another? 

scenario 3:

Stotts was employed as a technician in the engineering department of Raytron Corporation. 

All the engineers on staff were required to sign agreements that they would not accept employment with another company in the industry within three years of leaving Raytron. 

Technicians, who had limited access to company secrets, were not required to sign such agreements. After working at Raytron for about two years, Stotts realized that he was deeply involved in the development and had access to the same data as the engineers did. Stotts actively sought a position with Raytron's primary competitor and was hired by Watani Engineering. Because he did not have an engineering degree, he assumed that he had been hired because of his knowledge of Raytron's trade secrets. 

Did Stott violate legal or ethical dictates? Why or why not? 

scenario 4:

Without first obtaining a marriage license, the husband and wife were married in a religious ceremony.

Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife. They raised four children, all of whose birth certificates listed the husband as their father. At no time did either party deny that they were married.

In an action to dissolve the marriage, wife claims that the lack of a marriage license made the marriage void ab initio. 

What do you advocate?