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
In my opinion, if the jury in this case subtracted the contractual claims against the profits, they would have arrived at different damage/entitlement amounts. My guess is Main Line would have been entitled to much less than what was awarded in this case.
Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. The agreed price was $5,000. When the refrigerators were delivered to Rafael, he found they were damaged. An estimate for repairing them showed it would cost up to $1,000, and an expert opinion was to the effect that they were defective when shipped. Rafael put in a claim to Aldo, which Aldo rejected. Rafael then wrote to Aldo, “I don’t like to get into a despite of this nature. I am enclosing my check for $4,000 in full payment of the shipment.” Aldo did not reply, but he cashed the check and then sued Rafael for the $1,000 balance. May he recover? Explain.
Liability in restitution with disgorgement of profit is an alternative to liability for contract damages measured by injury to the promisee.” (2011)
In August 2008, NFM sent the McCaulleys another invoice of $14,550 and told them that NFM did not have to honor the agreement, because of the pricing error and a provision concerning this error printed in the back of the invoices the McCaulleys received. NFM eventually refunded the deposit to the McCaulleys’ credit card without informing them. On September 26th 2008, the McCaulleys filed a complained to seek declaratory relief and damages on the basis that NFM breached the sales contract. On October 24th 2008, NFM answered that the pricing error clause on the invoices invalidated the complaint and the fact that Richard and Michelle took no action to retender the deposit led to the rescission of the contract. In April 27th 2012, the district court ruled in favor of NFM. The McCaulleys appealed, alleging that there were several errors in the trial court’s judgment regarding the terms and conditions in the parties’ sales contract.
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.
In the Supreme Court of Florida case no. sc05-1294 Broward marine, Inc., Broward marine east, Inc. and Dennis Delong v. Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc., Broward Yachts, Inc. and Double Eagle Yachts, Inc., they cited Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985) in saying that the plaintiff’s case was on the breach of the implied contractual duty to disclose defects in residential property which was mandated in Johnson v. Davis.
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
“The Plaintiff demanded of Defendants that said items be paid for in full on numerous occasions including: at or immediately following the time of providing the various items; within the 30 day period following the
In this case a purchaser of an electric clothes dryer brings a law suit against Whirlpool (the manufacturer of the dryer) and Sears (the seller of the dryer) for fire damages that caused the purchasers home and possessions to burn down. The purchaser sued Whirlpool for negligence in the manufacturing of the dryer, and Sears for breach of implied warranty for merchantability. The case then moved to trial, and Whirlpool and Sears both motioned for a directed verdict. The motion was granted to Whirlpool, but not to Sears.
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.
According to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four years ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by defendant Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. Each of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law was $10,000. According to the opinion of the court the plaintiff asserted that he is also ?entitled to hold their stock holder personally liable for damages, because multiple corporate structures constitutes an unlawful attempt to defraud the general member of the public.?
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.
Would privity of contract be required for Kolchek to succeed in a product liability action against Great Lakes?
The traditional approach to jurisdiction invites a court to ask whether it has the territorial, pecuniary, or subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the ca...