Details of this Paper

Stephen Gall and his family became ill after drinking




Stephen Gall and his family became ill after drinking;contaminated water supplied to their home by;the McKeesport Municipal Water Authority. They;filed suit against the utility, arguing, among other;things, that the utility had breached the UCC implied;warranty of merchantability when it sold them contaminated;water. The utility moved to dismiss their;complaint, arguing that since water was not goods;the UCC did not apply. Should the Galls complaint;be dismissed?;In 1994, Schumacher and his wife and their two;daughters moved to Finland, Minnesota, to operate a;bar and restaurant called the Trestle Inn, which was;owned by his parents. Schumacher claims that his parents induced him to leave his;previous job and to;make the move by orally agreeing to provide him a;job managing the inn for life and to leave the business;and a large parcel of land to him when his first;parent died. Schumacher was given free reign in;managing the inn and was allowed to retain all profits;of the business but was not given any salary or;wage. While he was operating the inn, Schumacher;used his own funds to build a home for his family on;his parents land, install a well, buy equipment for;the business, and develop various marketing tools;for the business. In the fall of 1998, Schumacher;suspected that his parents were about to sell the inn;and the adjoining property. He brought suit for a;restraining order to prevent them from doing so;claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment;among other claims. In October 1998, the parents;notified Schumacher that his employment at the inn;and his right to possess the adjoining property were;terminated. The parents moved for summary judgment.;The trial court held that Schumachers oral;contract claim was invalid because the contract;needed to be in writing under applicable Minnesota;law. However, does Schumacher have a valid claim;for unjust enrichment?;Pernal owned a parcel of real estate adjacent to property;owned by St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church.;Pernal sent a letter to the church indicating that he;was offering it for sale for $825,000 cash/mortgage, as is, with no conditions, no;contingencies related;to zoning and 120 days post closing occupancy for;the present tenants. This offer was dated June 3;2003, and expressly provided that it would remain;open for a two-week period. On the same day, Pernal;also sent the same offer to sell the property on the;same terms to another prospective purchaser, White;Chapel Memorial Association Park Perpetual Care;Trust. On June 4, the church sent a letter indicating;that it accepted the terms of the offer that Pernal had;set forth in his letter. However, the churchs letter;also referenced an attached purchase agreement. The;purchase agreement agreed with Pernals purchase;price and the close occupancy period, but contrary to;the offer, it contained additional terms. The churchs;president signed this attached purchase agreement;but defendant did not sign it. The offer by letter;dated June 3, 2003, did not reference other potential;purchasers. On June 10, White Chapel, by letter;offered to pay $900,000 cash for the property, with;no conditions or contingencies related to zoning;and 180 days post closing occupancy rent free. On;that same date (June 10), Pernal sent a letter to;both potential purchasers. This letter indicated that;amended offers had been received. The letter further;provided that the offer would remain open for;two weeks time as provided in the initial offering;letter. On June 13, the church sent a letter to Pernal;stating that the offer had been accepted on June 4;and that an enforceable contract was formed. The;church sued Pernal for breach of contract. Will it;win?;Cantu was hired as a special education teacher by the;San Benito Consolidated Independent School District;under a one-year contract for the 199091;school year. On August 18, 1990, shortly before the;start of the school year, Cantu hand-delivered to her;supervisor a letter of resignation, effective August;17, 1990. In this letter, Cantu requested that her final;paycheck be forwarded to an address in McAllen;Texas, some 50 miles from the San Benito office;where she tendered the resignation. The San Benito;superintendent of schools, the only official authorized;to accept resignations on behalf of the school;district, received Cantus resignation on Monday;August 20. The superintendent wrote a letter accepting;Cantus resignation the same day and deposited;the letter, properly stamped and addressed, in the mail at approximately 5:15 PM that;afternoon. At;about 8:00 AM the next morning, August 21, Cantu;hand-delivered to the superintendents office a letter;withdrawing her resignation. This letter contained a;San Benito return address. In response, the superintendent;hand-delivered that same day a copy of his;letter mailed the previous day to inform Cantu that;her resignation had been accepted and could not be;withdrawn. The dispute was taken to the state commissioner;of education, who concluded that the;school districts refusal to honor Cantus contract;was lawful, because the school districts acceptance;of Cantus resignation was effective when mailed;which resulted in the formation of an agreement to;rescind Cantus employment contract. Cantu argued;that the mailbox rule should not apply because her;offer was made in person and the superintendent was;not authorized to accept by using mail. Is this a good;argument?;Tinker Construction had a contract with Scroge to;build a factory addition for Scroge by a particular;date. The contract contained a penalty clause exacting;daily penalties for late performance, and Tinker;was working hard to complete the building on time.;Because prompt completion of the addition was so;important to Scroge, however, Scroge offered Tinker;a bonus if it completed the factory addition on time.;Scroge also learned that the supplier of parts for machinery;that he had contracted for had called and;said that it could not deliver the parts on Scroges;schedule for the price it had agreed to. Because there;was no other supplier, Scroge promised to pay the requested;higher price. The factory addition was completed;on time and the parts arrived on time. Scroge;then refused to pay both the bonus to Tinker and;the higher price for the parts. Were these promises;enforceable?


Paper#32704 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $37