122617737 MGMT 597 Strat Considrs Of Mg
Running Head: End-of-Chapter Questions
Week 1: Assignment
Stephen DeMarco
MGMT 597: Strat Considrs of Mgrs & Ownrs
Devry University
Tracy Phillips
September 7, 2012
Week 1: Assignment
9.4. Assuming that the Montana law prohibits oral modifications of written contracts without actual performance/execution, then unless some profit-sharing was actually paid, or some memorandum exists from Loren proving the profit-sharing agreement was made, then Dennis cannot enforce the modified agreement, because he cannot satisfy the burden of production necessary to prove the contract 's existence. In the area of the ethics of Loren 's actions, ethical judgments are subjective, so the question is irrelevant, because it has no effect on the legal outcome of the dispute. The contract is either enforceable or it 's not -- that is the only issue. (Winkel v. Family Health Care, 1983)
10.7. Mr. Peter Andrus made an offer to purchase insurance for an apartment building for $24,000. Durick Insurance rejected the offer Mr. Andrus made and made a counteroffer containing an automatic acceptance absent affirmative notification. Mr. Andrus ' did not reply to the counter offer. As such the failure to pay the premiums as requested by Durick is notice to Durick of the rejection of the counteroffer. So Mr. Peter Andrus wins. (J.C. Durick Insurance v. Andrus, 1980)
11.4. Mr. Ralph Gough was under a preexisting duty to construct the trusses for the Kinney shoe store. The general contractor, Chuckrow, was never obligated to pay for the re-erection of those trusses no matter who’s fault if they fell according to the original agreement. Mr. Gough 's preexisting duty cannot operate as consideration or change Chuckrow 's offer to pay. Therefore the contract was not modified, and Chuckrow is obligated only for the original contract price. Hence Mr. Gough cannot recover the funds. (Robert Chuckrow Construction Company v. Gough, 1968)
13.1.
According to Henry Cheeseman
Week 1: Assignment
Stephen DeMarco
MGMT 597: Strat Considrs of Mgrs & Ownrs
Devry University
Tracy Phillips
September 7, 2012
Week 1: Assignment
9.4. Assuming that the Montana law prohibits oral modifications of written contracts without actual performance/execution, then unless some profit-sharing was actually paid, or some memorandum exists from Loren proving the profit-sharing agreement was made, then Dennis cannot enforce the modified agreement, because he cannot satisfy the burden of production necessary to prove the contract 's existence. In the area of the ethics of Loren 's actions, ethical judgments are subjective, so the question is irrelevant, because it has no effect on the legal outcome of the dispute. The contract is either enforceable or it 's not -- that is the only issue. (Winkel v. Family Health Care, 1983)
10.7. Mr. Peter Andrus made an offer to purchase insurance for an apartment building for $24,000. Durick Insurance rejected the offer Mr. Andrus made and made a counteroffer containing an automatic acceptance absent affirmative notification. Mr. Andrus ' did not reply to the counter offer. As such the failure to pay the premiums as requested by Durick is notice to Durick of the rejection of the counteroffer. So Mr. Peter Andrus wins. (J.C. Durick Insurance v. Andrus, 1980)
11.4. Mr. Ralph Gough was under a preexisting duty to construct the trusses for the Kinney shoe store. The general contractor, Chuckrow, was never obligated to pay for the re-erection of those trusses no matter who’s fault if they fell according to the original agreement. Mr. Gough 's preexisting duty cannot operate as consideration or change Chuckrow 's offer to pay. Therefore the contract was not modified, and Chuckrow is obligated only for the original contract price. Hence Mr. Gough cannot recover the funds. (Robert Chuckrow Construction Company v. Gough, 1968)
13.1.
According to Henry Cheeseman
References: Cheeseman, H. (2010). Business Law. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey; Pearson Prentice Hall. J.C. Durick Insurance v. Andrus, 139 Vt. 150, 424 A. 2d 249 (S.C. Vt., 1980) http://vt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CVT%5CVT__% 5C1980%5C19801115_0001.VT.htm/qx Robert Chuckrow Construction Company v. Gough, 117 Ga. App. 140, 159 S.E. 2d 469 (Ct. of Appeals, Ga. 1968). http://georgia-court-appeals.vlex.com/vid/gough-v- lessley-et-20485989 Steele v. Goettee, 313 Md. 11, 542 A. 2d 847. (Ct. of Appeals Maryland, 1988) http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19880627_004017 9.md.htm/qx Winkel v. Family Health Care, P.C., 205., Mont. 40, 668 P.2d 208. (S.C. Mont. 1983) http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CMT%5CMt2% 5Carchwaf%5C1983%5C19830712_0000150.MT.htm/qx