Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
In the case or Yost v. Rieve Enterprises, Inc. Rieve Enterprises engages into a contract with Mr. Yost for a lease to purchase deal. The facts of the case are that Rieve visited the Red Barn Barbecue Restaurant with the intention of purchasing. Rieve and Mr. Yost entered into a contract after Rieve conducted a visual inspection of the premises. The deal was to include a five year lease with the option to buy the land and building. Prior to the sale, the Red Barn had been cited for numerous health code violations. Mr. Yost had these all corrected and disclosed this information. Mr. Yost then warranted that “the premises will pass all inspections” to conduct business. Shortly after Rieve Enterprises
A legal discussion of the contractual breaches and their related legal elements will be examined in this section. Some of the legal issues surrounding the contractual breaches include, the legal implications of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), the defendant’s engagement in and outputs contract while under a requirements contract with my company, the doctrine of estoppel, and the issues of good faith and fair dealing. The definitions and some of the legal implications of the implied and requirements contracts were discussed in the preceding sections. An implied contract is defined as a “contract that is established by the conduct of a party rather than by the party’s written or spoken words” (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015,
The company Builder Square, Inc. was in the market to sell, subletting, or leasing vacant K-mart stores, in-turn found Network Group to carry out this process throughout the Ohio area. A deal was struck that Reisenfeld’s with the company Network that they would receive $1 per square foot for a store that was subleased totaling $260,320 in commissions. Unfortunately, Network’s sole shareholder was defrauding BSI in various ways. As a result, that Reisenfeld’s was left high and dry, with no money from the commission. After having a suit brought against Reisenfeld’s, and BSI stated that under restitution (unjust enrichment). Under Ohio law, there are three elements for quasi-contract claim. There must be (1) a benefit conferred by the plaintiff upon the defendant; (2) knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; (3) retention of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances where it would be unjust to do without payment (Kubasek, 2015, p. 313). It is the third one that the disagreement was based on was having the problem with; whether it would be unjust for BSI to retain the benefit it received without paying Reisenfeld’s for it. The courts ruled that Reisenfeld’s may seek payment from BSI under quasi-contract theory this in fact overruled the trial court’s judgment.
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.
If a breach of contract is both material and opportunistic, the injured promisee has a claim in restitution to the profit realized by the defaulting promisor as a result of the breach. Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.
(Insert Citation p 305). Consideration refers to the attained good or service agreed upon by each party under a contract. Contractual Capacity is the legal ability to enter into a binding agreement. Some factors that affect contractual capacity are: age, mental health and agreements under alcohol intoxication. Last but not least is the legal object, which means that for a contract to be enforceable it must be of legal intent and comply with public policy. If all of these factors are present in a contract, we can conclude that a binding contractual agreement exists and it is enforceable by law.
Damages – if the other party cause’s drastic damages that cost the other party or affect it negatively than the other party can sue and take them to court of law, and the court may claim that the affected party may be paid and be taken back to its original position as it was
The defendant is an Airlines Company that had 900 employees. The economic crisis followed with monetary crisis gave bad effects to the defendant. They should decrease the number of their airplanes form 9 to 2 airplanes. They also had to do the efficiency on their employees to 700. On the efficiency process, there was an agreement between the defendant and employees representation on October 30 1998. The agreement stated that they would bring Independent Public Accountant to analyze company financial condition. During the process, all side should work on their duty. The Defendant should pay employees’ wage. The agreement was not guarantee that didn’t mean the dispute process was over, but the negotiation still moved on. During the process, there was another agreement between the defendant and several employees. They agreed the finish the disputed process and the employees would get separation pay. Meanwhile, other employees, who were 153 people didn’t agree with that agreement. Because they didn’t agree each other, so the employees gave the case to the “Panitia Penyelesaian Perselisihan Perburuhan Pusat (P4P)”.
E.G. Lorenzen, Causa and Consideration in the Law of Contracts (1919). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 4560.