Case 31.5 Innocent Misrepresentation: 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 …show more content…
v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Joc Oil is suing for the right to cure. This right happens between merchants when there has been an issue with items purchased, shipped, or received incorrectly. In this case Joc Oil has contracted to purchase low-sulfur oil from one refinery and to sell that oil to Edison. The oil arrives at Edison and is offloaded into Edison’s storage facility, only to find that the oil exceeds the low-sulfur requirements set in the contract. In past transactions Joc Oil has delivered nonconforming goods, or goods that do not meet the requirements under the contract. Edison has previously allowed Joc Oil to cure by allowing them to deliver conforming goods within the contracted time frame. “A cure may be attempted if the time for performance has not expired and the seller or lessor notifies the buyer or lessee of his or her intention to make a conforming delivery within the contract time” (Cheeseman, 2013). In this case we assume that the testing by Edison that reported the goods as nonconforming is accurate. There are some questions that would need to be answered in order to fully and accurately deliver a verdict on this case. The largest question is: Joc Oil has a cure for the shipment expected to arrive within two weeks, is this within the contract timeframe? If this question is a yes then Joc Oil has the rights to cure the issue at hand. If the answer is no, then a breach of contract may be in the works. Due to the fact that Joc Oil has been allowed to cure the issue in the past, there is a pattern of behavior by Edison, to allow Joc Oil the ability to cure. This would put Joc Oil in a position where there is no breach of contract. Joc Oil in this case has the ability and rights to cure for two reasons. The first being the past history, and the second being the right to cure as guaranteed under the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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.
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 case I chose to do was Patrick Joseph Potter, Appellant, v. Green Meadows, Par 3, Appellee. The case was found in the Southern Reporter, volume 510 starting on page 1225. The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District heard the case and made its decision on August 13, 1987; 510 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. App. 1 Dist. 1987).
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.
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
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.
It seems as if Hamper vs. Commissioner is a case that an individual have to make a decision based off a specific place and time to wear a wardrobe. According to the case study, “As a television news anchor petitioner, it is required to maintain a specified professional appearance as described in the Women’s Wardrobe Guidelines. The guidelines provide that the “ideal in selecting an outfit for on-air use should be the selection of ‘standard business wear’, typical of that which one might wear on any business day in a normal office setting anywhere in the USA.” The guidelines point out that there is no correlation between the cost of an outfit and its appropriateness for use, and generally a conservative outfit purchased “off the rack” at a local
In support of his argument, Dr. Whyte has cited only two antiquated West Virginia cases, both of which are easily capable of distinction. In the first, Summit Coal Co., v. Raleigh Smokeless Fuel Co., 99 W.Va. 11, 128 S.E. 298 (1928), the Court affirmed a directed verdict against a party who had waited too long to question the performance of its counterparty, saying “[t]hese unquestioned agreements clearly establish an estoppel against the plaintiff and bar its rights
FACTS: David W. Elrod, litigation law firm, hired A-Legal, litigation support services, on January 26, 2009 and delivered to them documents and computer disks to start electronic discovery work on the “R Project”. A few days after A-Legal received the necessary files to begin working they informed Elrod that their services were going to be twice as much than what had been previously mentioned. Elrod, subsequently, cancelled their arrangements and looked elsewhere for services. A-Legal submitted its files as requested and billed Elrod $15,000.00, which Elrod refused to pay. A-Legal filed suite for breach of contract and Elrod counterclaimed for breach of contract, as well. Elrod argued that A-Legal violated the contract because they did not perform the work they requested at A-Legal. Instead, Elrod claims that A-Legal had an outside company do their work; furthermore, the work delivered was not completed as agreed upon. While at trial A-Legal claimed damages for the bill that was unpaid and Elrod claimed damages from lost revenue and lost business opportunity due to A-Legal’s breach. The trial court ruled in favor of Elrod and awarded $20,000 in damages and $60,000 in attorney’s fees. Before a written judgment was rendered, Elrod filed a motion to re-open evidence under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 270. The motion was granted and the trial court rendered a written judgment, almost three months later, in favor of Elrod.
Ltd. et al. v. Letain in 1963 Supreme Court of Canada. The optionee Conwest Exploration Co. Ltd. was promised an extended deadline for processing internal arrangement for incorporation by the optionor Letain. With the gratuitous promise from the optionor, the optionee carried on their steps towards incorporation. Later on, the optionee was told to revert back to the original date stated in the contract, thus they applied for relief on the grounds of equitability. (Marston, 2008, pp.92-93) As a result, “The court found that that it would inequitable to revert to the strict interpretation of the contract and therefore estopped the optionor from enforcing the date specified in the contract.”(Marston, 2008, pp.92-93). Likewise, the contractor in the second case will be refused to enforce the conditions in the contract and thus will not be able to terminate the contract as
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,
Here, the McDowell’s performed an adequate physical inspection of the property and necessary due diligence as required by New York under the doctrine of caveat emptor. In Daly, the buyers similarly performed a physical inspection of the property, but differed in that they failed to perform due diligence regarding the discovery of material fact from the inspection. In Daly, the buyer had a physical inspection performed on the property, it was discovered that there was evidence of previous water intrusion and the buyers were recommended to consult with neighbors and local authorities about the defect. This is distinguishable from the McDowell’s case because they hired a surveyor and inspector to examine the property. The surveyor found that the
Prior to this incident Alack had signed a two page seventeen paragraph contract; however the contract did not excuse the business of damages resulting from its own negligence or fault. The court sided with Alack and awarded $17,000 in damages to him for surgical and dental