Chord V. Tres Trendi Case Study

Zachary M. Zapata

CRJ 4013-901

UTSA ID: @01450686

Levine v. Blumenthal - Procedural history: District court ruled for Plaintiff (P). Plaintiff won on appeal, no consideration in modified contract. - facts: Defendant (D) agreed to pay a certain amount of rent for two years, with an increase in the second year. Defendant was unable to pay for the increase. It was found as a fact in district court that there was a verbal agreement to allow the defendants to pay the original year’s amount of rent for the second year. - issue: Can the promise to perform a preexisting duty count as consideration? Is consideration present in an orally modified contract brought about by special circumstances? - analysis: The court adopts the preexisting duty rule,

Tres Trendi The intent of the contract was for the Defendant (Tres Trendi) to employee a dinner pianist (Plaintiff/ Harp C. Chord) for one month. The contract was made on January 15th the parties entered into a contract under which Tres Trendi would pay the pianist Harp C. Chord to perform during dinner from 8 p.m. to midnight every night for a month. Tres Trendi breached the contract by failure to employ Plaintiff (Chord) and or offer a reasonable and fair different alternative of employment. This breach of contract is a result of the Defendant failing to perform their duties as specified in the contract agreement. The damages to include the current market rate of a dinner pianist for one months span for the agreed upon time of 8p.m. to midnight. Defendant denied defendant employeement nor was the defendant given a alternative option or enough time to prepare against Defendant's breach of the contract. In effect the non-breaching party did not receive the "substantial benefit" of the bargain.Therefore the Defendant has been unfair and negligent in upholding the agreed

The Plaintiff sustained consequential damages in their inability to prepare from the breach of the contract. Therefore the Plaintiff should be comensated to cover the losses that had effectively stemmed from the breach of the contract.The plaintiff sustained compensatory damages in the Defendant's failure to fufill the agreement within the contract. Therefore the plaintiff shoud be compensated to cover the losses directly caused by the breach. The defendant sustained expectation damages in the defendant's anticipation for one months worth of work and benefits for publicity. This compensation of damages covers the amounts a party orginally stood to gain from the contract. As like the Parker v. Twentieth Century Fox, the ruling in this case matter would be found to the measure of damages owed to a wrongfully discharged employee is the amount of salary agreed upon for the period of employment reduced by the amount the employer proves the employee has earned or with reasonable effort may have earned from other employment. It is important to note the defendant in this instance does not need to accept different or inferior employment. A wrongfully discharged employee is entitled to their lost salary, but the defendant must mitigate damages by seeking alternative