Esquire Radio & Electronics
Esquire Radio & Electronics, the plaintiff, has filed a law suit against Montgomery Ward, seeking damages for a breach of contract.
Esquire alleged that Montgomery Ward supplied them with spare parts with a promise that they would buy back any excess
The contract with ward was not a traditional contract, rather it was a promise to buy back the excess inventory. On many occasions Ward has forced Esquire to increase their inventory against their better judgement, Ward assured them that they would buy back the excess inventory.
Esquire Radio V. Montgomery Ward, 804 F.2d 787 (2nd Cir.1986)
Plaintiff and Defendant
Esquire Radio & Electronics, the plaintiff, has filed a law suit against Montgomery Ward, seeking damages for a breach of contract.
Facts
Esquire Radio and Electronics has sued Montgomery Ward for a breach of contract (Promissory Estoppel). Esquire alleged that Montgomery Ward supplied them with spare parts with a promise that they would buy back any excess inventory. Ward terminated the contract with Esquire Radio and refused to buy back the spare parts inventory.
The contract with ward was not a traditional contract, rather it was a promise to buy back the excess inventory. On many occasions Ward has forced Esquire to increase their inventory against their better judgement, Ward assured them that they would buy back the excess inventory. There was clear and unambiguous promises made by Ward to Esquire that they should not worry about the accumulating inventory of spare parts. Evidence further showed that Fisher, a wards manager assured Esquire that Ward would purchase their excess spare parts inventory. Esquire should consider the excess inventory on wards account, so said Fisher. Ward literally encouraged Esquire to purchase excess spare parts inventory.
Trial Court
The trial court ruled in favor of Esquire Radio. The court ruled that ward was obligated to purchase the excess inventory even though there was no contract. The promises were sufficient to satisfy the law of Promissory Estoppel.
Appeals court.
Montgomery Ward appealed the verdict but was over ruled and the verdict was upheld. The court ruled that there was sufficient evidence that Ward made the promise to purchase the excess inventory.
Promissory Estoppel in NY states that in the absent of a written contract, a promise or an implied agreement is sufficient to hold the company responsible.
Who Wins
In the beginning of March the newly joint corporation, McKesson HBOC started a negotiating process with Oracle Corporation. Unfortunately for McKesson, the negotiations ended without a contract. On April 1 Bergonzi let Hawkins know that he found an offer that could be a good deal. The agreement would require McKessonHBOC to sell $20 million worth of software to Data General, along with a license and a right to return any inventory that was not sold during the period of 6 months. The corporation would also have to help Data General find customers for the product. In return, they could buy $25 millions worth of computer hardware. The contract was signed on April 5 the same year. The senior management thought that backdating the sales and purchases would raise the company's revenues up to the desired levels. In order to cover their actions, the company created a false delivery receipt that showed the date of the delivery as March 31, 1999, while in reality the product was delivered in April. Both, the information about the $25 Million purchase of hardware from Data General as well as the return agreement concealed from the public.
...awarded by a jury, this motion was denied by the judge. In the end Arnold & Porter lowered their desired settlement from $21 million to $15 million, Pittston offered $13 million. The two parties reach a settlement for $13.5 million, $8 million of which was for psychic-impairment.
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Barbara Kalas (plaintiff) owns a print shop and filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Edward W. Cook for a breach of duties in which Adelam Simmons was the buyer of the estate. Kalas had a very extensive verbal agreement with Simmons for the sale of items and after Simmons’s death Cook declined to pay for these items that were delivered to her.
However in correspondence of 21st March1952 the defendant instigated an alteration to the legal position of both parties, by offering to commence "without prejudice" the delivery instruction covering the balance of bullets, provided that the final delivery would not be made later than 30th September 1952. The plaintiff first repudiated this offer on the 3rd April, but by the 4th of June 1952, a second critical letter was sent out by the plaintiff's solicitor stating its acceptance of the defendant's offer. On 8th July 1952, the defendant propose that it will only purchase 800,000 bullets as opposed to the contracted amount of 1,800,000(less 200,000 which had been delivered and paid) as the contract on the 2nd August had not been accepted by the plaintiff which denied it. And no delivery instructions were given by the defendant on or before the 30th September.
California and Hawaiian Sugar Company contracted Sun ship to build a vessel. The contract gave Sun Ship almost two years to complete the work. The contract contained a liquidated clause that required Sun Ship to pay 17,000 dollars per day for ever day that the ship was not delivered after the agreed date. The ship was delivered after eight and a half months after the agreed delivery date. During the period, the ship had not been delivered, California and Hawaiian Sugar Company suffered actual losses of 368,000 dollar. The defendant refused to pay the liquidated damages and the plaintiff brought an action to recover the damages.
A promissory estoppel is present if one party makes a promise to the other knowing that the other will rely on it. If the other party relies on it, there would be an injustice if the promise was not enforced. In the case of Sam and the chain store, unless the chain store had already paid him and/or spent money in anticipation of the arrival of the 1000 units, promissory estoppel would not be present since they did not rely on Sam’s promise. However, since the text reads that the chain store wrote a letter to Sam demanding that the 1000 units be sent, it implies that they had relied upon that
The rule that is being implied on why J. C. Flood Company should receive the compensation for the work done could be that although the contract was never written this is a promissory estoppel which is a noncontractual promise. It was implied and that Richardson agreed to it, by not trying to stop it, or clarifying that she would not have to pay for the work and labor. By not trying to stop the work from
The common rules of offer and acceptance need to be considered in determining if Gordon formed a contract with Ritebuild Ltd before they purported to withdraw their offer.
Our client, Peter LaFleur (“Lafleur”) has been sued for breach of contract. The lawsuit was filed by Perfect Diamond Baseball Academy (“PDBA”) on the ground that LaFleur violated a Noncompetition Agreement that he signed in his employment contract by opening a competing baseball facility after he was terminated. PDBA claims the opening of LaFleur’s business is detrimental to the future success of PDBA.
-Court must be convinced that failure to comply with an agreement will lead to one of the parties to suffer prejudice. Court will protect innocent party, will provide remedy
The plaintiff sued for malpractice charging that the emergency room physician was negligent because he did not use an opthalmoscope nor did an
Had they been able to do so, Chili’s, the principal in the agency relationship, would have been responsible for the tortious conduct of the patron, the agent. (Cheeseman, p.503) The tort remedies that would have been recoverable from Chili’s might have included “medical expenses; lost wages; pain and suffering; emotional distress; and, in some cases, punitive damages.” (Cheeseman, p.503)
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
In the pleadings, a complaint needs to be filed by the plaintiff with the court and the defendants. In this case, the complaint was filed for wrongful death and injunctions. The complaint was given to both companies on May 14, 1982. Then, the defendants must answer within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint to the summon or risk losing the case by default of the court. W.R. Grace denied the allegations against them. Also, their other defenses was that the complaint didn’t state any cause of action, in the complaint the company named was misnamed, the company followed the due of care at all times and acted in “good faith,” and the claims against them are barred. The next step is the methods of discovery.