Blaw Briefs Week 8 nk4y

Mukund Patel Business Law Cases and Problems Chapters 15, 16, 17 Case 15-1: Rosewood Care Center, Inc., v. Caterpillar, Inc. Facts: On January 3, 2002 Caterpillar ed HSM Management Services They are the management service for Rosewood and a skilled nursing facility. Caterpillar wanted Rosewood to it Cook on a fixed rate basis Rosewood denied Caterpillar’s employee in charge of medical care then told HSM that Cook must be itted to Rosewood The cost would be covered one hundred percent by Caterpillar and to just send the bill. HSM then faxed a letter to Rosewood confirming their conversation and they both parties signed the contract. Caterpillar, continued to orally “authorize” care for Cook In the end, they ultimately refused to pay for services rendered to Cook.

Issue: A complaint was filed and Caterpillar moved to dismiss the breach of contract count. The trial court granted Caterpillar’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract and thus barred Rosewood’s claims. Ruling: The appellate court reversed and remanded. In general, the statute of frauds provides that a promise to pay the debt of another is unenforceable unless it is in writing.

Case 15-2, Iacono v. Lyons Facts: The plaintiff and defendant had been friends for almost 35 years. In late 1996, the defendant invited the plaintiff to her on a trip to Las Vegas, Nevada. The defendant paid for all expenses because the defendant thought the plaintiff was lucky. They both went to Caesar’s Palace and started playing the slot machines The defendant wanted to leave after losing $47 but was convinced to stay for one more and won almost $2 million. The defendant refused to share the winnings with the plaintiff, and denied that they had an agreement.

Issue: They plaintiff then sued the defendant for breach of contract. The courts found that any oral agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds or was voidable for lack of consideration.

Ruling: The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

Case 15-5 Jenkins v. Eckerd Corporation

Facts: In January 1991, Sandhill and K & B Florida Corporation, a pharmaceutical retailer, entered into a subject lease This was providing for the rental of a parcel of real property This was located in a shopping center in Gulf Breeze, Florida. December 2001, Sandhill filed suit against Eckerd for an alleged breach of the shopping center lease Issue: They were seeking damages for rent, taxes, and common-area maintenance. A judgment for Eckerd was awarded and an appeal ensued. The trial court correctly ruled that it could not it extrinsic evidence. Ruling: Affirmed

Problems:

1. It was all simply verbal and there was no contract in writing which is needed if a situation as this one is brought to court. 2. It depends if there is a written contract or not. But in my opinion, there should be contract because Smith gave up a lot to accept the job and he was assumed to be under an entire years salary. Smith recovers the rest of the money. 3. The son’s promises to the hospital are not enforceable because they were only oral. 4. Ames and Cain are not under breach of contract because they ed the company. Bell and Dole did not and therefore are under breach of contract. 14. Regardless of the contract being performed in one year or not, Dean was hired under the assumption that he would be working for a minimum of one year.

Chapter 16 Case 16-2: Aldana v. Colonial Palms Plaza, Inc.

Facts: Colonial Palms Plaza, Inc. entered into a lease agreement with Abby’s Cakes On Dixie Inc (Tenant) for commercial space in a shopping center. The lease included a provision which Palms agreed to pay Abby’s a construction allowance of $11,250 This was only if Abby’s completed certain improvements to the property. Before the completion of the improvements, Tenant assigned its right to receive the a small portion of the allowance to the assignee (Robert Aldana) In return, Aldana loaned the money to Abby’s. When Abby’s completed the improvements, Palms ignored the assignment and paid Abby’s the construction allowance. Issue: Aldana then sued Palms for the money. The trial court granted Palms motion for summary judgment. This is because there was an anti-assignment clause in the lease. Aldana then argues that under ordinary contract principles, the lease provision at issue does not prevent the assignment of the right to receive contractual payments. Ruling: The court agreed. The case was reversed and remanded.

Case 16-4: Stine v. Stewart Facts: Mary loaned her daughter, Mary and son-in-law, William $100,000 to purchase a home. In return, they both tly executed a promissory note for the same amount. They managed to pay half of it, but left the other half paid and it had unpaid accrued interest due on it. Mary and William ended up divorcing and brought forth an agreement that stated both Nancy and William would get money. Mary then sued both for breaching the contract. The trial courts awarded Stine $28,410 in damages from Stewart. This was then reversed and the judgment was won in favor of Mary and William. Issue: But overall, the agreement’s language clearly showed that Stewart intended to secure a benefit to Stine as a third-party creditor beneficiary There is still a legal obligation to pay Stine and thus revives it as an enforceable agreement. Ruling: The courts appeal judgment was reversed.

Problems 1. a) Carter must pay this fee b) Carter is still paying but now for Dumont to sing, which has breached the contract since it isn’t exactly Euphoria anymore. c) Edmund now has the contract with no changes occurring but everyone in the contract must be informed. Overall, the third party involved and also any other individual involved in any of these contracts must be informed of any changes.

2. Yes, Puff will most certainly recover because although a third-party to the contract, the contract covers “all damages to buildings resulting from the work performed” and this is regardless of whether it was just the city of Chicago’s property or any other. The Smooth Paving Company is obliged to pay and cover damages to Puff.

9. Lisa may not cover damages Curtis, it is the responsibility of Jay to cover damages. But at same time, Curtis is obligated to cover damages and must pay to Jay who owes to Lisa. Curtis is the third-party here but at the same time is responsible for his actions. This way, the law still stands and no loophole is allowed.

11. Schupack is in the wrong because the first policy still stands over all others. Copeland was not allowed to sell his rights to Schupack to begin with. This is valid under the Successive Assignments of the Same Right where the first assignee is the majority rule.

13. Northwest Airlines will indeed prevail because the company thought ahead and threw all liability at Crosetti. The incident then occurred and Crosetti is only responsible otherwise Northwest Airlines may have not even started a contract with Crosetti.

23. The Pizza Shops will prevail because there is a clear difference between Macke and Virginia. The Pizza Shops are allowed to make a change here because only Virginia was under contract with them, Macke could possibly have made multiple changes when they took over Virginia and all these would warrant a breach in contract.

Chapter 17

Case 17-3: Hochster v. De La Tour

Facts: April 12th, 1852 Hochster and De La Tour entered into a contract to serve as a tour guide on their 3 month Euro trip There was a set fee and they would embark on June 1st May 11th, he notified the tour group that he no longer needed Hochster’s services and refused to pay for damages Hochster brings this as breach of contract

Issue: Does he have the right to breach this contract And does Hochster deserve compensation

Ruling: Judgement for the Plaintiff

Case 17-4: Northern Corp. v. Chugach Electrical Association Facts: Northern Corporation entered into a contract with Chugach in August 1966 This was to repair and upgrade the upstream face of Cooper Lake Dam in Alaska. The contract required Northern to obtain rock from a quarry site at the opposite end of the lake and to transport the rock to the dam during the winter across the ice on the lake. Then, Northern cleared the road on the ice but things went wrong and the road became no longer useable. In March 1967, one of Northern’s loaded trucks broke through the ice and sank. Eventually, Northern ceased operations with approval of Chugach. Chugach wanted more and two more Northern drivers ended up dying. Issue: Northern advised Chugach it considered the contract terminated for impossibility of performance and commenced suit to recover the cost incurred in attempting to complete the contract. The trial court found that the contract was impossible of performance considering the loss of life involved. Northern countered saying that other means could have been taken but no further explanation was given Ruling: The court’s concluded yet again that the contract was impossible of performance. Affirmed

Problems 3. Hodges will prevail because of substantial performance. They could not have predicted the drought. And they intended to meet the contract. They should receive fair rate for the 100.

5. Hunter will not be successful in this claim because it is destruction of subject matter. This contract is discharged because it is not Webster’s fault.

9. Under objective impossibility she was discharged but is entitled to return and be given a fair chance

10. Since the contract is based upon the condition that the subject is satisfied. The hotel would win because it depends on their satisfaction.