Jon Marunowski November 20, 2016 Liberty University TO: Alex Fairchild, Mediator FROM: Marshall Peterson DATE: November 19, 2016 SUBJECT: Resolution of dispute to the breach of contract from the producers of Muscadine Products I, Marshall Peterson, am seeking resolution and restitution of damages for breach of contract by the producers of the Muscadine product line. Such contracts that have been violated have been the Good Faith and Fair Dealings relationship developed over the years and also the Requirement Contract said company and I signed quite some time ago stating a guaranteed price schedule that has stayed consistent since the beginning of the business relationship. A couple years ago, both the producer of the Muscadine product …show more content…
As a result of the breach, I am pursuing legal options to mitigate my losses; court precedence allows me to do such a thing as shown in the case of “Sons of Thunder Inc. vs Borden Inc. In it, the case was allowed to go to court based on the ruling of a breach in the Good Faith and Fair Dealing clause that developed throughout their business relationship. As a result of the case proceeding, Borden was found guilty of violating the Requirements Contract (among other grievances mentioned in their case) and was ordered to compensate Sons of Thunder Inc. for the loss in result to the breach. (Sons of Thunder Inc. vs Borden Inc. 1997) There are also many more case precedence of being allowed to pursue this case, Khanna vs Microdata Corp showed the court siding in the case of the Plaintiff when he was discharged from his company providing no “just cause” thus severing the implied–in-law covenant that was established during the course of his employment. I would also like to point out “Dare v. Montana Petroleum Marketing” in which job security and a right to be treated fairly was assumed to of been had (Breach of an Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
In Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, plaintiff was looking for a job with defendant, Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. Plaintiff, Laduzinski, claimed that he was lured away from his job under false pretenses since defendants hired him to get access to his contacts. Nine months later, after plaintiff had given all his contacts, the manager of the Alvarez companies fired him because there was no work for him. Laduzinski brought a claim to recover damages for fraud in the inducement. The lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claims because plaintiff was an “at will” employee. After Laduzinski appealed, the issues were whether the complaint stated a cause of action for fraudulent inducement, despite that Laduzinski was an at-will employee; and whether the alleged misrepresentations were actionable statements of present fact or non-actionable future promises.
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. This contract was created using the RESC form, which was likely provided by their real estate agent as it is the required form for real estate transactions according to Utah state law. The seller originally listed the house on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS); Jon and Marsha agreed that the asking price was too high for the neighborhood (although we are not given the actual listing price), and agreed to offer two-hundred and seven-thousand dollars ($207,000) and an Earnest Money Deposit of five-thousand dollars ($5,000). Additionally, the buyers requested that the seller pay 3% which includes the title insurance and property taxes. After the REPC form was drafted, the two addendums were created. Addendum No. 1 is from the seller back to the buyer, and Addendum No. 2 is the buyer’s counteroffer to the seller.
The allegations of fraud in this case involved a client, rather than the plaintiff’s employer. Why is she still able to sue her employer under the SOX
Krum, the court ruled that when the defendant sold ice cream to the plaintiff, he did so with the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption, and referring to a previous case, determined that this implied warranty was necessary to the preservation of health and life (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Race v. Krum, 118 N.E., at P#2 and #4, (1918)); similarly, in Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., the court ruled that privity between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer was not essential for recovery of damages as this recovery would not impose a greater burden on the manufacturer or on the immediate seller of the food than it would be if the original purchaser had been injured (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272 (S.F. No. 16626., at Pgs. 13-14
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
It is my opinion that the law as currently written (both legislative and common) does not provide the protections for the aggrieved as I assume was envisioned in its intent. For a rich party to merely pay a reset damage in order to capitalize (perhaps in light of market changes or new information) in breaching a valid agreement seeing it as merely a cost of enrichment is an affront to the stability of contract law and enforcement. The ability to award damages for “profit realized” would do well to cement the theory that an agreement is enforceable and legally binding. This is good for business internationally as our global markets will know that an agreement formed in the United States will be honored and the civil laws guaranteeing its enforcement has
Marshall Peterson has invested a significant amount in advertising, and growing his business of offering the Muscadine grapes that John Doe’s company supplies to him. In the event that Mr. Peterson is required to either discontinue the sale of the grapes, or will need to locate and establish a new relationship with a new supplier, his business will likely be negatively affected at least for a short time. If he chooses to pursue legal action, then there are certain legal considerations that he will enlist to build his case.
Third-Party Defendant, Delta-T Corporation, (“Delta-T”), by its attorneys, ADLER MURPHY & McQUILLEN LLP, moves this Honorable Court for an order allowing Third-Party Plaintiff, Agra Industries, Inc. (“Agra”) to produce the Settlement Agreement between Agra and Plaintiff, United Ethanol, LLC (“United Ethanol”), and for an extension of time for Delta-T to respond to Agra’s Motion to Participate on Its Own Right To Recover Damages against Delta-T.
A) Monteverdi could seek the following damages for the scenario in question 2: compensatory damages, so that Monteverdi can be reimbursed for the amount she spent on the cheese. In addition, Monteverdi could sue for monetary loss. Monteverdi ran a catering business and a gourmet shop, her business ran on selling only organic food. The purchase of the cheese which was not high quality, would have gone to waste. Previously, Monteverdi gave Malvezzi specific instructions about the grade of cheese that she wanted. Monteverdi may argue that the same implied terms applied to the purchase of the Parmigiano cheese. If this was the case, Monteverdi would also be able to sue for liquidated damages due to Malvezzi breaching the contract they had in place. Finally, Monteverdi has the option of seeking damages for fraudulent misrepresentation. The elements of fraudulent misrepresentations were, 1) a representation was made, 2) it was false, 3), the person who made the representation knew it was false, 4) the plaintiff (Monteverdi) relied on the statements, 5) the plaintiff sued for damages. Malvezzi knew that the cheese he sold to Monteverdi was not the quality she expected, yet he sold it to her in order to keep Monteverdi’s
The purpose of this correspondence is to encourage you to provide fair and just relief to said Haskell in order that all the parties may avoid litigation as provided for under the above said statute. Certainly, this is a matter that should not have to be litigated and Mr. and Mrs. Haskell consider some of your salespersons to be friends.
Within in scenario A, Rhianna and Chris enter into a written contract in which Mr. Brown was to sell his knife collection for an agreed upon amount of $5,000 that was to be paid in 2 installments of $2500 dollars. The first payment was to be made when Rhianna picked up the knives from Mr. Brown and the second payment was to be made exactly one month later. The first legal issue at hand is if the written contract had a clause that stated whether or not an assignment could be made. Some contracts prohibit the move of assignment; others may require that the other party consent to this assignment. Because this isn’t stated, there is not way to prove whether or not this clause agrees. It gets tricky because Rhianna knowingly told Beyoncé
During this business transaction Don is late paying his invoices, therefore, violating Custom and practice between merchants. Don is in valuation of § 25-1-303. Course of performance, course of dealing, and usage of trade and § 25-1-304 Obligation of good faith (Uniform Commercial
Discussion and Analysis: The elements of negligence in this scenario are; although the manager of Foods, Inc. was unaware of
...emical companies that helped produce Agent Orange. Yannacone filed a class action lawsuit for Reutershans case against six chemical companies that helped produce Agent Orange. The case grew as lawyers across America started representing more people affected by Dioxin. The case ended up in Jack Weinstein’s court at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. The night before the trial Weinstein tried to come up with a settlement option. Weinstein thought the chemical companies had a weak defense and could not see the jury siding with them. Weinstein thought the chemical companies had a weak defense and could not see the jury siding with them. The companies agreed with a settlement as long as they did not have to own up to it. Now that closer was brought to this case, those looking for compensation received it and the talk of Agent Orange died down.
Carolyn tells her, "Well I broke a dinner plate a year or two ago and