Every workday at noon, Tom, Delilah, and Harry (TD&H) left their store, crossed the road, and walked through Rebecca’s meadow to sit and eat their lunches ………..

1. 1. Every workday at noon, Tom, Delilah, and Harry (TD&H) left their store, crossed the road, and walked through Rebecca’s meadow to sit and eat their lunches at the top of an embankment overlooking the railroad tracks. They made bets on how many cars long a train would be or how many types of cars there would be on a train. After a month, Rebecca had enough of their trespassing. On July 10, 2009, she promised to buy each of them a pair of binoculars, keep a path mowed in her meadow, and allow them to watch the trains from her meadow for the next year, if they agreed to change the oil in her car for free at their garage four times during the following year. They would be allowed to use her meadow once the first oil change was performed. TD&H agreed. Then Tom, Delilah, Harry, and Rebecca signed the contract, and on the morning of July 17, 2009, TD&H changed the oil in Rebecca’s car.

Four months after entering into the contract, TD&H decided to sell their business and retire. They sold the company and transferred all contracts to three ambitious Drexel graduates, Selma, Albert and Farid (SA&F). TD&H gave the binoculars to SA&F, since it would no longer be convenient for them to use Rebecca’s meadow to watch the trains. SA&F began inviting their friends to join them in the meadow to party on weekends. Rebecca was surprised to find new owners the next time she took her car to the garage for an oil change. However, she was furious when she discovered that SA&F and ten to twenty of their friends were using her meadow for weekly parties. Rebecca then erected a fence and sued TD&H for breach of contract, arguing that they had no right to allow SA&F to change her oil or use her meadow. SA&F then sued to force Rebecca to give them access to her property. Decide, DISCUSSING FULLY the arguments of all parties. (50 points)

50 points


1. 2. On September 29, 2009, Dan Dawson began negotiating a one-year contract whereby he was to become a management consultant to the J. Consult Company from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 with a salary of $88,000. They also agreed that Dawson would be supplied with a company car. On October 17, 2009, Consult presented Dawson with a contract, complete in every way, except for the car. Dawson pointed this out to Consult, but she told him, “Don’t worry about such trifles. I’m a woman of my word. You’ll get the car.” Then Dawson and Consult signed the contract, and on January 1, 2010, Dawson began to work for the company.

By January 22, 2010, it was apparent that there was no car for him. Dawson threatened to sue for breach of contract. What argument(s) could Consult use to avoid liability for providing the car? Dawson thinks he would be better off ignoring the written contract and instead relying on their oral agreement, which did include the car. Do you agree with Dawson? Why or why not? Describe the relevant legal theories. (Do not discuss mistake, fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence or duress.) (50 points)

50 points


1. 3. Gerald agrees to supply Danita with 400 dogs at a price of $60 per animal. Danita informs Gerald that she needs the dogs no later than September 17. Their written contract also has a clause requiring the party at fault to pay the other $300,000 in the event of a breach. On September 17, Gerald only delivers 200 dogs. Danita locates another supplier, who ships her 200 dogs at a price of $110 per dog. Danita was planning to use the 400 dogs in a dog food commercial, but had to delay the filming for three days. The total costs for the delay (crew, equipment, etc.) were $189,000. Danita sues Gerald for breach of contract, claiming damages. Discuss fully the arguments of both parties. Decide who will win, and if Danita wins, how much, if anything, she will recover. (50 points)

50 points


1. 4. Will Greene, an experienced promoter and producer of musical concerts, entered into a contract with Len Rencel, a rock singer, whereby Greene would promote several concerts for Rencel. Rencel belonged to the American Federation of Musicians (AFM), a union that represents most big-name musicians. The contract between Greene and Rencel was on a standard, preprinted form required to be used by all AFM members. The contract contained an arbitration clause that required any disputes regarding the contract to be heard and decided by the executive board of the AFM. When a monetary dispute arose between Greene and Rencel regarding the division of proceeds from the concerts, Greene sued Rencel in court. Rencel filed a motion to compel arbitration. Greene argued that the arbitration clause was unenforceable. Is Greene correct? Why or why not? What legal theory will Greene argue? (50 points)

50 points


1. 5. FreshCut, Inc., a wholesaler of flowers, grows some roses, daisies and orchids and gets additional supplies of flowers from other growers. In November 2009, FreshCut entered into a written contract to sell Bloom “1200 red roses at $2.60 each, delivery to be made on February 11, 2010.” In January 2010, a tornado destroyed FreshCut’s fields of roses and she failed to make the delivery on February 11, 2010. Bloom, forced to buy the roses elsewhere at a higher price, sued FreshCut for breach of contract. Who will win? Discuss fully the arguments of each party. (50 points)

Best Nursing Papers Writing Help

nursing papers online

Get Nursing Writing Help Chat

× WhatsApp us