Question;Using the Module 3 readings, course website links, the GCU Library, the Internet, and/or other sources of literature as needed, complete the following problems:Chapter 9 - Problems and Problem Cases: Problems 9 and 10Chapter 10 - Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 6Chapter 11 - Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 7Chapter 12 - Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 10Responses should not typically exceed 200 words for each problem;Chapter;9 Case Study: Stephen Gall v. McKeesport;Municipal Water Authority;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?;Chapter;9 Case Study: Schumacher v. Parents;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 Schumacher?s 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?;Chapter;10 Case Study: Pernal v. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church;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 church?s letter also referenced an attached purchase agreement.;The purchase agreement;agreed with Pernal?s purchase price and;the close occupancy period, but contrary to the offer, it contained additional;terms. The church?s 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?;Chapter 11 Case Study: Cantu v. San Benito;Consolidated Independent School;Cantu was hired as a special education;teacher by the San Benito Consolidated Independent School District under a;one-year contract for the 1990?91 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 Cantu?s;resignation on Monday, August 20. The superintendent wrote a letter accepting;Cantu?s 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 superintendent?s 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 district?s refusal to;honor Cantu?s contract was lawful, because the school district?s acceptance of;Cantu?s resignation was effective when mailed, which resulted in 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?;Chapter;12 Case Study: Tinker Construction v. Scroge;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 Scroge?s;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#58937 | Written in 18-Jul-2015Price : $25