1. One day, while Bruno is preparing for a difficult stunt, he gets into an argument with the director and refuses to perform any stunts at all. Can X entertainment seek specific performance of the contract? Why or why not? p.216
Yes, X entertainment can seek specific performance of the contract because Kyle was in a contract to perform an act as promised. He is in a breach of contract, which X entertainment can demand specific performance.
2. Suppose that while performing a high-speed wheelie on a motorcycle, Bruno is injured by the intentionally reckless act of an X Entertainment employee. Will a court be likely to enforce the limitation-of-liability clause? Why or why not? p. 205, 229
A contract may include provisions stating that no damages
…show more content…
(1) When the contract was entered into, was it apparent that damages would be difficult to estimate in the event of a breach? (2) Was the amount set as damages a reasonable estimate and not excessive? (Cross & Miller, 2012)
4. Suppose that the contract had no liquidated damages provision (or the court refused to enforce it) and X Entertainment breached the contract. The breach caused the release of the film to be delayed until the fall. Could Bruno seek consequential (special) damages for lost profits from the summer movie market in that situation? Explain. P.223-224
Yes, the amount of time spent is outside the time limit on the contract. The contract for the movie was signed by Kyle on August 1, and will be canceled until next fall. A breach of contract entitles the non-breaching party to sue for monetary damages. Foreseeable damages that result from a party’s breach of contract is called consequential damages or special damages. In other words, to recover consequential damages, a breaching party must know or should have known in advance of the breach that special circumstances will cause the non-breaching party to suffer an additional
One may however ask the following questions. How are punitive damages actually allocated? And what is the current trend in the United States and in France in this area?
There were also no terms or conditions to perform, nor a time or event of completion of performance. “USLegal.com helped further explain the requirements of a legally enforceable contract by providing the following elements that must be adhered to, in order for a contract to be legally binding: an offer; 1. an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds, 2. a promise to perform, 3. a valuable consideration, 4.
Answer: No, it is not enforceable because there was no bargained-for exchange. Pablo did not give Xerxes Corp. something of legal value in return for this promise. Therefore, if Pablo
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.” (2011)
(b) Except for an agreement with the principal relating to the completion schedule, range of work hours or, if the work contracted for is entertainment, the time such entertainment is to be presented, the person has control over the time the work is performed.
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.
... with adequate funds to make the payments would have no issue with the payment plan provided by the contract. Since some reasonable consumers would have no problem with the payment plan provided by the contract, the contract should not deemed unconscionable, and thus should be enforceable.
Since the Court found that Jacob & Youngs had substantially preformed the contract, and that the cost to remedy to damages unreasonable, Kent is entitled to be compensated the difference in value between the reading manufacture pipe specified in the contract and the pipe that was actually installed.
John and Robert are enjoying their first ride in Johns new Miata Convertible with the top down. While the sun is now out. It has just rained, there are still puddles on the road and John is driving much too fast. John loses control of the car on the sharp curve and skids. Robert not wearing his seatbelt, is thrown out from the vehicle and is injured. John, belted in, had gained control of the car and has no injuries. His car is undamaged. Is John liable for damage claim for damage claim from Robert who was not wearing a seatbelt?
Mr. Krakt, through counsel, filed a brief in opposition to the motion arguing the limitation of liability is enforceable under and was accepted by Mr. Jameson as a part of the contract. • Return of the Ring: The parties disagree on whether the ring was ever returned to Mr. Jameson when he arrived at Krakt & Sons Jewelers in January 2013. Mr. Jameson alleges that Mr. Krakt did not return the ring, and in doing so is liable to Mr. Jameson for breach of bailment contract, conversion, and fraud. Mr. Krakt contends that he did return the ring to Mr. Jameson in January of 2013, fulfilling the bailment contract and returning Mr. Jameson’s
5. The thing that you will need to implement is the disabling of all unnecessary ports and services on the POS devices.
There are still more questions than there are answers regarding what went wrong during the Sony PlayStation and Qriocity cyber security breaches. However, based on the media coverage of the event, it is possible to piece together some plausible scenarios regarding what went wrong. First, I will present information procured from media sources regarding the details of the attack and the weaknesses of Sony’s systems. Second, I will describe how the attack fits into some of the theoretical frameworks that we have been discussing in this class so far this semester.
The verdict came in, the jury found for the plaintiff $2 million in compensatory damages and $400 million in punitive damages. The vote was 9 to 3 in favor of the plaintiff. Nicholas slipped into the night and had a Learjet take him to Marlee.
Did you know that there are 4 types of remedies of a breach contract they consist of compensatory, consequential, punitive, and nominal damages?