Question Presented and Brief Answer for the salon memoQuestion Presented y Brief Answer para el memo del salón
Assignment
Using the salon facts from the companion exercise (Renata Solís, the twenty-two false reviews posted by former employee Kyle Benner over six weeks, the eight midnight hang-up calls over two weeks, the lost bookings, the doctor’s visit and the anxiety prescription), write the Question Presented and the Brief Answer for a memo whose Discussion concluded that the reviews cannot support IIED and the calls might, if outrageous enough.
Two parts, each under 100 words. Then compare with the model.
Model answer
Question Presented
Under Texas law, can a salon owner recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress against a former employee who posted twenty-two false online reviews attacking her professional reputation over six weeks and, separately, called her personal phone eight times between midnight and 2 a.m. over two weeks and hung up each time?
Brief Answer
Probably not as to the reviews, and doubtful as to the calls. In Texas, intentional infliction of emotional distress is a gap-filler tort that is unavailable when the gravamen of the complaint is another tort such as defamation, even if that other claim is weak. The reviews attack reputation, so a court will treat them as defamation territory and dismiss the IIED claim based on them. The calls are conduct rather than speech, so they can be examined under the four elements (intentional or reckless, extreme and outrageous, causing severe distress); eight hang-up calls over two weeks are unlikely to be found extreme and outrageous, though the medical evidence helps on severity.
Common mistakes
- Writing a question that could be asked of any IIED case (no facts).
- Loading the question with adjectives (vicious campaign, harassing calls).
- Starting the Brief Answer with the rule or a citation instead of the answer.
- Answering the reviews and the calls together when the Discussion treated them separately.
Self-checkAutoevaluación
Read the model answer below, then mark each item: did your answer do this?Lee la respuesta modelo abajo y marca cada punto: ¿tu respuesta lo hizo?
- The Question Presented follows under–does–when: governing law, legal question, decisive factsLa Question Presented sigue under–does–when: ley aplicable, pregunta jurídica, hechos decisivos · 2
- Names the three or four facts that decide the threshold (false reviews about reputation; repeated late-night hang-up calls) and nothing elseNombra los tres o cuatro hechos que deciden el umbral (reseñas falsas sobre la reputación; llamadas repetidas de madrugada) y nada más · 2
- Neutral wording: no adjectives, no conclusion, no argumentRedacción neutral: sin adjetivos, sin conclusión, sin argumento · 1
- The Brief Answer opens with probably not (or an equivalent direct answer)El Brief Answer abre con probably not (o una respuesta directa equivalente) · 1
- States the gap-filler rule in one sentence and the Twyman elements in anotherEnuncia la regla del gap-filler en una oración y los elementos de Twyman en otra · 2
- Gives the key reason for each part: reviews are defamation territory; calls are independent conduct that may not be outrageous enoughDa la razón clave de cada parte: las reseñas son terreno de difamación; las llamadas son conducta independiente que quizá no sea lo bastante outrageous · 2
- Each part under 100 words; present tense; no citations in the Brief AnswerCada parte en menos de 100 palabras; presente; sin citas en el Brief Answer · 1
Copied. Paste it into a file in inbox/ and run /feedback on it.Copiado. Pégalo en un archivo en inbox/ y corre /feedback sobre él.
Drop the file in inbox/ and run /feedback in Claude Code for a structured review.Deja el archivo en inbox/ y corre /feedback en Claude Code para una revisión estructurada.