Critical Legal Thinking Case 8.1 Performance: Wallace C. Drennen, Inc. v. Haeuser, 402 So. 2d 771 (La. App. 1981).
In the Wallace C. Drennen, Inc. v. Haeuser, 402 So. 2d 771 (La. App. 1981) case, the Louisiana law has a provision that if a contractor has substantially performed the work as indicated in the contract, should be paid for the job done. Should there be any deductions or by any reasonable cause the other party (owner) has reason enough to complain about deficiencies thereof, it should be factored. The law, therefore, stipulates that the damages caused to the owner should be compensated to the same proportion as the damage. In the case, therefore, the plaintiff wins because he will only respond to the damages and not a full refund of the agreed cost of construction (Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Critical Legal Thinking Case 8.3 Damages: Hawaiian Tel. Co. v. Microform Data Sys. Inc., 829 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1987).
It was right for the court to award Hawaiian Tel. Co. for the damages caused. Microform Data System Inc. had a legal obligation to fulfill its part of the bargain by ensuring it provided the services as promised in the contractual agreement. According to the law, if there is a breach in the contract, the defaulter (defendant) is supposed to pay the plaintiff for the damages commensurate to the alleged promise, if due process is to be complied with. From the judge's point of view, there was a substantial delay in effecting the agreement. As such, the scenario could cause the plaintiff irreparable damages based on the time metrics and functionality of the anticipated system (Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
Critical Legal Thinking Case 8.5 Damages: Gundersons, Inc. v. Ptarmigan Inv. Co., 678 P.2d 1061 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
Yes. The Gundersons are supposed to receive the profits which were considered lost on the remainder of the two thirds of the contractual agreement. The reason behind the compensation for damages, was to put the non-breaching party in the equal/same position based on the assumption that the contract had been fully performed so that the benefit the bargain is realized. The law is clear on such matters since a contractor is supposed to be entitled to recover from a breaching defendant damages commensurate or sufficient to be placed in the position in which it would have been if at all the breach of a contract had not happened.
According to the court's verdict, Drennen was entitled to a $42,324 as per the contract and less $26,715 incurred in repairs (Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
Critical Legal Thinking Case 8.7 Liquidated Damages: Idaho Plumbers & Pipefitters Health & Welfare Fund v. United Mech. Contractors, Inc., 875 F.2d 212 (9th Cir. 1989).
In this case, it is a "NO" since the liquidated damage is not enforceable. Liquidated damages can only be enforceable whenever the harm caused by a reasonable breach is impossible or complicated to estimate. In case the amount quoted for the breach is fixed to compensate for the harm caused, it should be indicated. The amount should be commensurate to the anticipated damage; otherwise, if this is to the contrary, it is considered void as a penalty. As per the federal common law, the court was accurate on its judgment for the damages to be deemed to be based on the provision "void as a penalty." Furthermore, the fixed amount should be a reasonable forecast of the harm caused (Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
Critical Legal Thinking Case 8.9 Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations:
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 791 P.2d 587 (Cal. 1990)
The case should rightly be awarded to Pacific Gas & Elec. Co as a result of intentional interference with no cause. According to the court's decision, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co was not culpable for the accused act of making it expensive for Bear Stearn to enjoy benefits. The provision of the law states that a party to a contract may sue if there is a probable cause and as such, Pacific Gas & Elec. Co was not. Otherwise, the law allows the plaintiff to sue the third party causing interference to the same. It is considered a tortious act of malicious intention to disrupt contractual relations. The tort is enforceable if the third party knows the contract, if there is a valid, binding contract between the parties in the contract and if the inducement to a breach happened in a practical sense (Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
Critical Legal Thinking Case 9.1 Domain Name: Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy, No. 02-1782 ADM/JGL, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1226, at *1 (D.Minn. Jan. 28, 2005).
The winner is Coca-Cola because Classic Coke is famous. Still, to the contrary, Francis's intention was not in good faith since he was making profits out of domain name sales, which was contrary to the Anticyber squatting Act that prohibits bad faith registration (Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
Critical Legal Thinking Case 9.3 Contract
Critical Legal Thinking Case 9.3 Contract: the winner, in this case, is Buffest since, according to the law, the licensor should not give rights to another party containing the same information.
Critical Legal Thinking Case 9.5 Electronic Signature
The winner, in this case, is Inet since it is the responsibility of The Federal Electronic Signature Act to distinguish the signature. Any form of duplication by licensor is therefore considered a breach of contract and could amount to a refusal to tender (Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
Critical Legal Thinking Case 9.7 License
Silvia wins the case since the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act stipulates that if there is any form of malpractice by the licensor to tender a copy, it will be tantamount to breach of contract(Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
Critical Legal Thinking Case 10.1 Merchant: Gulash v. Stylarama, 364 A.2d 1221 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1975).
In this case, the answer is "NO." the contention is an essential sale that exists from the seller to the buyer and not Schulz and Sayers, who were not merchants of football helmets. At the time of the injury, Hemphill was a member of the team and not the buyer. Furthermore, there is no clarity if the university passed the helmet to Hemphill. A legal contract would have been if the sale was directly connecting the buyer to the seller (Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
Critical Legal Thinking Case 10.3 Statute of Frauds: St. Charles Cable TV v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 687 F. Supp. 820 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Yes, there was a valid contract. In a sales contract, there should be an offer and acceptance as the parties involved. There should be an offer and acceptance. It is proof enough that a sales contract existed because there was the shipping of the merchandise and payment of the contractual agreement as per the provisions of the law (Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
Critical Legal Thinking Case 10.5 Battle of the Forms: Miller v. Newsweek, Inc., 660 F. Supp. 852 (D. Del. 1987).
“ NO.” The court found the parties to be merchants based on the photographs, and as such, there was a legal contract as per the law (Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
Critical Legal Thinking Case 10.7 Statute of Frauds: H.C. Schmieding Produce Co. v. Cagle, 529 So. 2d 243 (Ala. 1988)
“ NO.” there was no written contract between Wallach and Donzi as required in the contract for the sale of a dealership. In this case, the oral agreement violated the Frauds statute; hence, it was not enforceable by the court. Secondly, a sales contract for over $500 was not enforceable(Reed, Cheeseman & Schlageter III, 2012).
References
Reed, K., Cheeseman, H. R., & Schlageter III, J. J. (2012). Contract Law for Paralegals: Traditional and E-contracts . Pearson Higher Ed.
