California and Hawaiian Sugar Company v Sun Ship, Inc. California and Hawaiian Sugar Company contracted Sun ship to build a vessel. The contract gave Sun Ship almost two years to complete the work. The contract contained a liquidated clause that required Sun Ship to pay 17,000 dollars per day for ever day that the ship was not delivered after the agreed date. The ship was delivered after eight and a half months after the agreed delivery date. During the period, the ship had not been delivered, California and Hawaiian Sugar Company suffered actual losses of 368,000 dollar. The defendant refused to pay the liquidated damages and the plaintiff brought an action to recover the damages. The issue in this case was whether California and Hawaiian Sugar Company could recover the liquidated damages from Sun Ship. Where there is a contract between the parties for liquidated damages and d there were no misrepresentations or unfair dealing in creating the contract, …show more content…
The information was used to create a screenplay and Marder signed a release contract discharging the producers from liability arising from the use of the information. Sony subsequently paid the producer for the release of copyright and produced a music video. Marder brought a claim seeking a declaration that she co-owned the copyrights. The issue was whether the release agreement was an enforceable contract. The court held that the agreement she signed released the producer of any claim including claims of co-ownership and she could not seek damages. Agreements affect businesses in the United States as they are binding and one cannot go against them without breaching the contract. An agreement is beneficial to businesses as it ensures performance of agreed duties. They can also pose a challenge to a business especially where the r is an agreement for performance and the business does not perfume according to the
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. The agreed price was $5,000. When the refrigerators were delivered to Rafael, he found they were damaged. An estimate for repairing them showed it would cost up to $1,000, and an expert opinion was to the effect that they were defective when shipped. Rafael put in a claim to Aldo, which Aldo rejected. Rafael then wrote to Aldo, “I don’t like to get into a despite of this nature. I am enclosing my check for $4,000 in full payment of the shipment.” Aldo did not reply, but he cashed the check and then sued Rafael for the $1,000 balance. May he recover? Explain.
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)
The court refused to help Campbell in enforcing its legal contract because “the court felt the contract was extremely one-sided. [ Also], it was wrong for Campbell to ask for the court’s help in enforcing this unconscionable bargain (one that “shocks the conscience of the court”)” (Rogers,
Would privity of contract be required for Kolchek to succeed in a product liability action against Great Lakes?
Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.” (2011)
The company Builder Square, Inc. was in the market to sell, subletting, or leasing vacant K-mart stores, in-turn found Network Group to carry out this process throughout the Ohio area. A deal was struck that Reisenfeld’s with the company Network that they would receive $1 per square foot for a store that was subleased totaling $260,320 in commissions. Unfortunately, Network’s sole shareholder was defrauding BSI in various ways. As a result, that Reisenfeld’s was left high and dry, with no money from the commission. After having a suit brought against Reisenfeld’s, and BSI stated that under restitution (unjust enrichment). Under Ohio law, there are three elements for quasi-contract claim. There must be (1) a benefit conferred by the plaintiff upon the defendant; (2) knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; (3) retention of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances where it would be unjust to do without payment (Kubasek, 2015, p. 313). It is the third one that the disagreement was based on was having the problem with; whether it would be unjust for BSI to retain the benefit it received without paying Reisenfeld’s for it. The courts ruled that Reisenfeld’s may seek payment from BSI under quasi-contract theory this in fact overruled the trial court’s judgment.
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.
“The Plaintiff demanded of Defendants that said items be paid for in full on numerous occasions including: at or immediately following the time of providing the various items; within the 30 day period following the
Dan Cone is the owner and founder of Sunbreak Express. Sunbreak Express is a small, local coffee shop that is located on 53rd street as you are headed towards Philomath. Being the owner of Sunbreak Express, Daniel has the duties to hire new employees, make sure they are all the correct fit for the job, balance the accounting books, reorder supplies and products for the shop, and most of all he has to make a comfortable and enjoyable workplace for not only his employees, but his customers as well. Being an employee at Sunbreak Express means that you must be able to take and prepare drinks in an efficient and organized manner. The employee must be able to handle stressful situations in a positive and upbeat manner as well as making sure the customer starts their day on a positive note. Daniel strives to find employees that will be efficient when taking and making drinks and someone who is willing to listen and to learn new things. It 's also very important to be punctual when in the workplace, because you can 't run a
In this case a purchaser of an electric clothes dryer brings a law suit against Whirlpool (the manufacturer of the dryer) and Sears (the seller of the dryer) for fire damages that caused the purchasers home and possessions to burn down. The purchaser sued Whirlpool for negligence in the manufacturing of the dryer, and Sears for breach of implied warranty for merchantability. The case then moved to trial, and Whirlpool and Sears both motioned for a directed verdict. The motion was granted to Whirlpool, but not to Sears.
Defendant, Brad Hamilton (“Mr. Hamilton”), pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Fed. R. Civ. P., and Rule 7.1 of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, respectfully moves for the entry of final summary judgment as to all claims pled by Plaintiff, Hannah Carson (“Ms. Carson”). In support of its Motion, Mr. Hamilton submits the following Memorandum of Law.
A binding contract was formed between Beem and myself on May 2 when Beem received 50% of the agreed upon purchase price for car parts. The following day, Beem informs me he will not deliver the parts per our agreement, therefore breaching our contract. Later that day I discover Beem is insolvent, consequently that significantly limits my remedy options, however, I would seek specific performance and punitive damages.
The traditional approach to jurisdiction invites a court to ask whether it has the territorial, pecuniary, or subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the ca...