INTRODUCTION This is a breach of contract case, Gourmet Jerky Co. breached the Exclusivity Agreement between the manufacturer, Gourmet Jerky Co. (“Gourmet”), and a distributor, Munchies Marketing, Inc. (“Munchies”). Gourmet’s actions were in violation of the agreement. After breaching the Exclusivity Agreement, Gourmet Tortious interfered with contracts that Munchies had with third party vendors, when it solicited Munchies customers in violation of the Exclusivity Agreement. As a result of these actions Gourmet was unjustly enriched. Gourmet has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Gourmet is not entitled to Summary Judgment pursuant to MCR 2.116 (C)(9) because there are genuine issues of material facts regarding both counts: Tortious Interference …show more content…
II. Genuine Issue of Material Fact Preclude Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Tortious Interference with a Contract Under Michigan law, the elements of a claim for tortious interference with a contract are: “(1) the existence of a contract, (2) a breach of the contract, and (3) an unjustified instigation of the breach by the defendant.” Prudential Def. Sols., Inc. v. Graham, 498 F.Supp. 3d 928, 941 E.D. Mich. 2020) (citing Health Call v. Atrium Home & Health Care Servs., 268 Mich. App. 83 (2005). The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. A party who alleges tortious interference with a contract “must allege the intentional doing of a per se wrongful act or the doing of a lawful act with malice and unjustified in law for the purpose of invading the contractual rights. of another.” Derderian v. Genesys Health Care Sys., 263 Mich. App. 364, 382. “A wrongful act per se is an act that is inherently wrongful or an act that can never be justified under any circumstances. If the defendant's conduct was not wrongful per se, the plaintiff must demonstrate specific, affirmative acts that corroborate the unlawful purpose of the interference." Knight Enterprises, Inc. v. RPF Oil Co., 299 Mich. Appl. No. 89/02, p. 89. 277, 280. “Where
Even though the contract was properly formed, there was a misrepresentation in Perez’s offer when he said that plaintiff “would be managing the sizeable workload of the company rather than bringing in business.” Judge Scarpulla, ruling for the lower court, said that to claim for fraudulent inducement, a plaintiff must show
Friganim Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. Facts: Friganim Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered into. In the first of the two contracts, Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. (smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract than the first agreement)
Had they been able to do so, Chili’s, the principal in the agency relationship, would have been responsible for the tortious conduct of the patron, the agent. (Cheeseman, p.503) The tort remedies that would have been recoverable from Chili’s might have included “medical expenses; lost wages; pain and suffering; emotional distress; and, in some cases, punitive damages.” (Cheeseman, p.503)
Medical malpractice cases are difficult for the families who have lost their loved one or have suffered from severe injuries. No one truly wins in complicated court hearings that consist of a team of litigation attorneys for both the defendant and plaintiff(s). During the trial, evidence supporting malpractice allegations have to be presented so that the court can make a decision if the physician was negligent resulting in malpractice, or if the injury was unavoidable due to the circumstances. In these types of tort cases, the physician is usually a defendant on trial trying to prove that he or she is innocent of the medical error, delay of treatment or procedure that caused the injury. The perfect example of being at fault for medical malpractice as a result of delaying a procedure is the case of Waverly family versus John Hopkins Health System Corporation. The victims were not compensated enough for the loss of their child’s normal life. Pozgar (2012) explained….
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Read the Case Campbell Soup Co. v. Wentz in the text. Answer the following questions:
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
Jones was party to the contract and mortgage together with Mrs Jones as surety for her husband, even though Mrs Jones was the actual owner of the property. This produced a legal consequence as it affected the appellants with a conduct on the part of the husband in relation to his wife which raised equities in her favour against the indication of a mortgage. The husband exercised undue influence on Mrs Jones to procure her signature to the mortgage which consisted of no consideration. The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant upon a contract to pay interest and principal contained in the mortgage over the property at Walkerville owned by Mrs Jones. It was understood that Mrs Jones executed the mortgage without understanding the effect of the contract and presumed various false misrepresentations. She argued that the mortgage which she s...
Were the items specially manufactured goods? Is the defendant to blame since the items cannot be sold at any other location? Is the verbal agreement for the sale of goods more than $500 enforceable?
Nursefinders argues that the causes of action based on respondent superior liability failed because Drummond was a special employee of Kaiser or acted outside the course and scope of her employment. they also asserted that no triable issues listed on Montague’s negligence claim and the lack of cable cause of action precluded a derivative loss of consortium claim.
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
Tort reformers believe that courts must reduce the ability of defendants’ liability in order to avoid economic decline. In the years to come, the proposals likely to generate the biggest dispute include malpractice and class-action reform, limits on noneconomic and punitive damages, and a legislative solution to asbestos legation (Rushmann, 2006). There are many lawsuits. But the frivolous lawsuits should not be taken seriously and not cost our courts and citizens time and/or money.
The construction site was in a downtown area of a large southeastern city, criss-crossed with city streets, utilities, and immediately adjacent to mid-rise and high rise buildings. Nearly all of the work was required to be constructed within temporary piling structures to limit settlement of adjacent structures. The construction contract called for seven phase releases of work areas and nine completion milestones, each milestone has its own liquidated damages penalty. The construction contract was valued at $10 million, and the duration was 545 calendar days. Following the completion of the work, the contractor filed a claim for $5.5 million and 1.1 million in interest. The authority subsequently denied the claim and the contractor, in accordance with the contract, filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association. Following the contractor’s issuance of the demand letter, the parties agreed to resolve the dispute through negotiation” (Ray,
McDonalds over the years has defended its unethical practices and those of their franchisees, they have been slapped with numerous lawsuits for various violations w...
Even though the principal does not authorize, ratify, participate in, or know of the misconduct, he/she may be held for an agent’s tort committed in the course and scope of the agent’s employment. As noted in Case Study 1, an agent is to comply with all lawful instructions received from the principal and persons designated by the principal concerning agent’s actions on behalf of the principal. A principal who is under a duty to provide protection is subject to liability to such others for harm caused to them by the failure of such agent to perform the duty. A principal is not relieved from the separable part of a contract which he/she authorized the agent to make by the fact that the agent under took. Even where the agent’s unauthorized act constitutes a fraud on both the principal and the third person, the partial validity rule is applicable.