Here the agent, the warden has agreed to things he was not allowed to promise. S
ID: 373803 • Letter: H
Question
Here the agent, the warden has agreed to things he was not allowed to promise.
So, legally the warden was not allowed to make the committment to the offers or demands made by the inmates, but the bigger part is the demands made were illegal at the first place, as those are extortion and threatening instead of asking for anything that is rightfully theres.
Hence in a legal way the promise not fulfilling does not call for any contract violation, as the contract agreement was not legally done.
In case of Wagner vs State, the case is of battery where the pained wanted to get compensated from the state, but the state has claimed battery as the contact by the offender and the resulting harm to the victim can be:
where as in the case state has not done any wrong thing and not a single deliberate action from state that actually cause the victim any harm. So the state is out of any implication.
Explanation / Answer
In a paragraph is two answer the following case: "Prisoners rioted at the Iowa State Penitentiary and held prison staff members as hostages. The warden agreed in writing that no reprisals would be levied against the rioting inmates. In exchange, the pris- oners released the hostages. After the hostages were released, several of the prisoners were pun- ished for the riot. One prisoner, Wagner, was placed in solitary confinement for 30 days. He also received 180 days of administrative segregation and the loss of 1,283 days of goodtime earned. On what legal grounds could the warden refuse to keep his promise to the inmates? Explain. [Wagner v. State]