California and Hawaiian Sugar Company v Sun Ship, Inc. 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. The issue in this case was whether California and Hawaiian Sugar Company could recover the liquidated damages from Sun Ship. Where there is a contract between the parties for liquidated damages and d there were no misrepresentations or unfair dealing in creating the contract, …show more content…
The information was used to create a screenplay and Marder signed a release contract discharging the producers from liability arising from the use of the information. Sony subsequently paid the producer for the release of copyright and produced a music video. Marder brought a claim seeking a declaration that she co-owned the copyrights. The issue was whether the release agreement was an enforceable contract. The court held that the agreement she signed released the producer of any claim including claims of co-ownership and she could not seek damages. Agreements affect businesses in the United States as they are binding and one cannot go against them without breaching the contract. An agreement is beneficial to businesses as it ensures performance of agreed duties. They can also pose a challenge to a business especially where the r is an agreement for performance and the business does not perfume according to the
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.
Facts: Frigaliment Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. had breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered. In the first of the two contracts Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. ( smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract vice the first agreement) Both contracts were signed by the parties on May 2nd, 1957. BNS shortly after made 2 shipments to meet the requirements of the first contract , of these two shipments the first was not delivered in full, but the shortage was made up with the later shipment. After receiving the shipment, Frigaliment came to the conclusion that the larger chickens delivered were not young chickens suitable for the purpose of frying or broiling. The older chickens commonly known as fowl were only suitable for stewing purposes. Frigaliment then requested to B.N.S. to stop the second contract shipment of chickens and sued BNS, claiming that under the contract B.N.S. was to only ship young chickens. BNS in turn responded that the obligation was simply to ship chickens that met the description in the contract; this was not exclusive to young chickens per the contract.
One type of subject matter jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction which is the courts ability to hear federal claims. The only claim in this case is breach of contract which is a state claim, not a federal claim. Therefore, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.” (2011)
The legal issue that the court had to address was what was considered just compensation. The court
Dan Cone is the owner and founder of Sunbreak Express. Sunbreak Express is a small, local coffee shop that is located on 53rd street as you are headed towards Philomath. Being the owner of Sunbreak Express, Daniel has the duties to hire new employees, make sure they are all the correct fit for the job, balance the accounting books, reorder supplies and products for the shop, and most of all he has to make a comfortable and enjoyable workplace for not only his employees, but his customers as well. Being an employee at Sunbreak Express means that you must be able to take and prepare drinks in an efficient and organized manner. The employee must be able to handle stressful situations in a positive and upbeat manner as well as making sure the customer starts their day on a positive note. Daniel strives to find employees that will be efficient when taking and making drinks and someone who is willing to listen and to learn new things. It 's also very important to be punctual when in the workplace, because you can 't run a
SCENARIO 3: Mi Sun the 8-year-old female is experiencing a few cultural barriers that make her situation unique. Coming from a Korean-American family means that Mi Sun and her family are viewed in their culture as one family unit as opposed to individuals in a family. Mi Sun’s culture believes a child owes a debt to their parents and must respect them at all times. Mi Sun’s family may have operated in a benevolent monarchy, and when she reported the abuse she violated all that her family believes in. The additional pressure Mi Sun may feel that is coming from the church is due to traditional beliefs that Mi Sun is not following.
United States v. Sell, 343 F.3d 950, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26859 (8th Cir., Sept. 2, 2003)
A binding contract was formed between Beem and myself on May 2 when Beem received 50% of the agreed upon purchase price for car parts. The following day, Beem informs me he will not deliver the parts per our agreement, therefore breaching our contract. Later that day I discover Beem is insolvent, consequently that significantly limits my remedy options, however, I would seek specific performance and punitive damages.
First solar, Inc. is an American manufacturer of thin film photovoltaic (PV) modules, better known as solar panels. The company has an opportunity to expand into other regions, making the company more profitable. The company was founded in 1990, by Harold McMasters as Solar Cells, Inc., and it was then purchased by the True North Partners, LLC, who rebranded it as First Solar Inc. First Solar headquarters’ is located in Tempe, Arizona, U.S. The company went public in 2006, trading on the NASDAQ. First solar is ranked as the second largest maker of solar panels modules worldwide. They specialize in manufacturing photovoltaic modules, and also serve as providers of photovoltaic power plants. First solar became the first solar panel manufacturing company to “lower its manufacturing cost to $1 per watt and that has been done through their replacement of crystalline silicon for cadmium telluride as their semiconductor” to create panels (Lynley, 2011). The manufacturing company continues to grow and improve their products as well. We will be exporting our photovoltaic products to the Dominican Republic. The reason we chose to export solar panels to the Dominican Republic is simply because it is one of our smallest products yet the most accessible one.
Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd which was held in 1961 is a landmark case in English contract law area. There was a charter-party between the plaintiff who was the owner of the vessel called Hongkong Fir and the defendant who was the charterer. After the plaintiff breached the contract, the defendant repudiated the charter-party. While the plaintiff alleged that the cancellation was wrongful and unjustifiable. Than the trial judge supported the allegation by the plaintiff which caused an appeal by the defendant. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The key facts and the ratio decidendi will be presented below. The judgments by Sellers LJ and Upjohn LJ held that the breaches of the controversial term were not serious enough to entitle the defendant to terminate. A new category of the term was
Defendant, Brad Hamilton (“Mr. Hamilton”), pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Fed. R. Civ. P., and Rule 7.1 of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, respectfully moves for the entry of final summary judgment as to all claims pled by Plaintiff, Hannah Carson (“Ms. Carson”). In support of its Motion, Mr. Hamilton submits the following Memorandum of Law.
This issue was then brought to court ICJ however it did not show clear evidence of the solving of the case and thus related to this case being dragged for almost 20
The traditional approach to jurisdiction invites a court to ask whether it has the territorial, pecuniary, or subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the ca...