Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Case study of contract law
Case study of contract law
Case of contract law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Case study of contract law
C. Section 2-619(a)(9): Various Affirmative Matters Defeat Counts VI, VII, & VIII Counts VI, VII, and VIII, which each allege breach-of-contract and conversion theories of relief, should be dismissed pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code.
1. Plaintiffs Breach of Contract Claims are Defeated by the Lease Terms and are Waived
Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claims are defeated by two independent affirmative matters: the lease’s terms and the equitable principle of waiver. To bring a breach of contract cause of action, a plaintiff must allege (1) the existence of a contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance of all contractual conditions, (3) defendant’s alleged breach, and (4) damages. See Premier Electrical Construction Co, 159 Ill. App. 3d at 102 (emphasis added). Dismissal pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code is warranted when an affirmative matter defeats a claim. Napleton, 408 Ill. App. 3d at 450. As discussed below, Plaintiffs cannot establish their own contractual performance, and similarly, cannot establish or have otherwise waived any allegation that Defendants breached the lease. With respect to Plaintiffs’ contractual performance, Defendants reiterate the arguments raised in their prior dismissal motions.
…show more content…
In addition, Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to sustain an anticipatory repudiation of a contract claim, and have waived any claim based on a constructive eviction. Plaintiffs also cannot maintain their breach of contract causes of action because they failed to perform their contractual obligations, waived any breach claims based on allegations occurring before Plaintiffs extended the lease term, and Defendants were not in breach for the allegations pertaining to August 2014. Therefore, Counts IV, V, VI, VII and VIII should be dismissed with
The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises. The contract between the Alvarez Companies and Laduzinski carried the certain elements of a basic contract since there was an offer, an acceptance, and a consideration. Perez offered plaintiff a position with the Alvarez companies, adding that the company was interested in obtaining plaintiff's contacts to have Before Laduzinski accepted the offer, asked for a two-year contract; However, Perez told plaintiff that his position would be focused on managing the Alvarez companies' workload, since the Alvarez companies has "a lot of clients and were busy. " Laduzinski accepted defendants' offer of at-will employment and quit his job at J.P. Morgan.
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
In the case of Michael T. Vandall, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant v. Trinity Hospitals, a corporation, and Margaret C. Nordell, M.D., the issue is about retaliatory discharge. It deals with problems with Trinity Hospital in North Dakota, Dr. Margaret Nordell and Dr. Michael Vandall, both physicians working in the OB-GYN department.
1. As the person, responsible for labor relations at Barrera Recycling Company, articulate a case to support your contention that there was just cause for the discharge of Erin McNamara.
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
Statement of the Case: This part has the summary of the dispute, and what happened in the lower court and present court by the time that the brief was filed. Also, this part provides important facts and a word by word recall of the case (Statsky, pg. 545).
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
The court findings have finally come to a conclusion, to confirm regard to defendants Alexander, McCarthy, Caruso, and Correctional Medical Services Inc. because the Plantiff has poorly provided evidence specifying suspicious indifference. However, the court overturned the district court’s granting of summary judgment to Heebsh and Pausits, two defendants who return to custody for further actions because of sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference to survive summary judgment.
This memo will only discuss elements 2-5 in that order, in addition the duty and breach elements will be combined as well as the proximate cause and actual loss elements. The first element of attorney-client relationship is well established so it need not be discussed.
Plaintiff Debra Denise Gregg filed a sexual harassment suit for violations of Title VII, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act against Hay-Adams Hotel. She sought $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 for damages resulting from emotional distress and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff Anthony Gregg brought the claim for damages resulting from loss of companionship and consortium in the amount of $1,000,000. The judges dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s accounts lacked consortium and that the facts did not support her claims for emotional distress and punitive damage.
3. Assuming that she was, a question whether the respective defendants, any, all, or who of them, were proper subjects for the injunction prayed, as holding the bonds without sufficient title, and herein -- and more particularly as respected Hardenberg, and Birch, Murray & Co. -- a question of negotiable paper, and the extent to which holders, asserting themselves holders bona fide and for value, of paper payable "to bearer," held it discharged of precedent equities.
In the Supreme Court of Florida case no. sc05-1294 Broward marine, Inc., Broward marine east, Inc. and Dennis Delong v. Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc., Broward Yachts, Inc. and Double Eagle Yachts, Inc., they cited Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985) in saying that the plaintiff’s case was on the breach of the implied contractual duty to disclose defects in residential property which was mandated in Johnson v. Davis.
After analyzing the discourse community of law and the detailed process lawyers take in order to write an effective appeals brief, one can see that lawyers have a very specific and unique way of communicating that includes certain jargon unfamiliar and possibly incomprehensible to the general public. Although writing an appeal brief is only one aspect of many that government prosecuting attorneys such as Kenny Elser face in their jobs on a daily basis, it is also a very necessary job because not only is it used by a single discourse community in the law profession but utilized by the discourse community of law as a whole.
During the court, P4P issued the Decision Letter (No.660/48/17-10/IX/PHK/4-1999) that the defendant was not allowed to dismiss their employees. The reason was because there was not agreement between the defendant and the 153 employees. The defendant refused that Decision Letter because that would cause the defendant should give the job to the employees back and should pay their wage.