This case is an interesting one because it gets right into the core of the confliction between the proprieties of contractual agreement. This case is focused primarily on Osborne Development Corp. and the multiple defects customers are experiencing with their homes. These upset customers are suing this Corporation in attempts to collect reparations for the discrepancies faced. The homeowners who purchased homes form Osborne Development Corp. (ODC) negligently purchased these homes. According to the Home Buyers Warranty ( HBW), “ Any and all claims disputes and controversies by or between the Homeowner, the Builder, the Warrant Insure and/or HBW…
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)…
The Plaintiff Wendling was originally awarded damages for the breach of an oral contract for the purchase and sale of cattle to the Defendants Puls and Watson by the Harvey District Court; which the Defendants turned around and later appealed. Both of the Defendants argued that the oral contract was unenforceable by law and the damages were also not calculated correctly.…
b) Kleinberg Corporation was sued by a customer for product liability. The customer sought damages of $1,500,000. At the its December 31, 2012, year-end, the company obtained an opinion from their lawyers that the customer had a 75% likelihood of winning the suit with the damages likely to be assessed in the range of $800,000 to $1,200,000. Legal costs were estimated to amount to a further $150,000. In late January, before the company’s financial statements had been finalized, the company settled the claim with the customer for $800,000. The lawyers estimated their fees to be reduced to $80,000 because the matter was settled without going to court.…
Company A’s Defense: Impracticability and rights to delegate Company A is responsible for the poor workmanship of Company B BREACH OF CONTRACT Tom’ Offer??? Assessing Tom’s position Determining Breach Of Contract Harry’s Legal…
28. Eagle Products, Inc., breaches its contract with Federated Stores Company. Federated files a suit to recover compensatory damages, which are normally assessed to - compensate a nonbreaching party for the loss of a…
For the case of Sopov v Kane Constructions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009], the appellant engaged the respondent as contractor in a construction project. The appellant repudiated the contract by wrongly calling on the respondent's bank guarantee, in response to which the respondent terminated the contract and claimed damages for quantum meruit. The Court of Appeal applied the NSW Court of Appeal decision in Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234 which provided that an innocent party who accepts a defaulting party's repudiation has the option of claiming either damages for breach of contract, or a quantum meruit for the fair value of work done. The initial contract price was held to be only evidentiary for the…
.Application: according to the written agreement LLC payed the capital account and 2005 compensation to Olson.Olson may argue that due to the oral agreement LLC breached it`s duty to pay fair market value of a member.on the other hand LLC may argue that it only owe duty according to written agreement about paying the 2005 compensation and capital account and oral agreement is not accepted by the LLC.The Olson may argue that the LLC has to pay the compensation that had occurred not…
Q1, On the basis of the facts presented with the case overview, is Labco’s accounting policy for the revenue treatment of its construction contract reasonable?…
Facts: Frigaliment sued B.N.S. There were two contracts that involved selling chickens. In the first contract B.N.S was in agreeance with selling 75,000 pounds of 2.5-3 pounds of chicken, to Frigaliment. 50,000 pounds of chicken at 2.5-3 pounds at a higher price were agreed in the second contract. B.N.S fulfilled the first contract with two shipments. The first shipment fell short. B.N.S made up for the short shipment in their second shipment. Frigaliment accused B.N.S of shipping the larger chicken not to their expectations. Frigaliment protested the rest of the shipments. B.N.S said that their only obligations was to ship chicken that met the requirements stated in the contract.…
Raymond Smith recently bought a new car from a car dealership. The sales contract he signed contained language expressly denying liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car. It also limits the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replace the defective part. Unfortunately one month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car. I will determine what would be the result if Raymond Smith sued the dealership.…
The alleged that defendant breached the parties' agreement when his partnership terminated the Deferred [**2] Compensation Agreement.…
For the injured party within a breached contract to claim for remedies whether it was agreed on at the time of writing the contract or an decided at a later time, both the injured party and the other party (e.g. a business and a customer) will have to go to court to decide what kind of remedy will occur to the injured party fairly to the proportion to the damaged done.…
2. Issue: Whether P can recover for the loss of wages during those 9 days, the destruction of personal property b/c of injury, and the conscious pain and suffering he experienced in the 9 days…
The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court in favor of appellee subcontractor, finding that promissory estoppel was a viable cause of action in a bid construction case. The court found that the award of damages based on this theory was factually supported by the evidence, and that there was statutory authority for the award of attorneys' fees. The determination of the rate of prejudgment interest also was proper.…