Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Research Paper Essay
Chapter 9 Problem 9 The Gall family became ill after drinking contaminated water provided by McKeesport Municipal Water Authority and filed suit against the Authority. The Authority filed to dismiss the tutelage. Should the Galls complaint be dismissed? No, the Galls complaint should not be dismissed. Even though the code rule does not apply, the code concepts of best faith transaction and unconscionability exist and can be utilized.Chapter 9 Problem 10 Schumacher took all over his parents business at their request, built a parvenue home on their land, installed a well, and bought equipment for the business all with his own funds. There was a communicative agreement that Schumacher would be allowed to manage the business for life and a big(a) parcel of land would be given to him when his first parent died. When the parents trenchant to sell the Inn and adjoining property, Schumacher sued. He lost, because in Minnesota, the agreement had to be in writing and his was an oral agr eement. The question is does Schumacher have a sound claim for unjust enrichment? Yes, the parents benefitted from the new home and all the improvements to the parents land, such as, the new home, the well, and all the business equipment.Chapter 10 Problem 6 An strait for change of a parcel of land adjacent to ST. Nicholas Greek Orthodox church was displace by letter from Pernal to the church and too to White chapel Memorial Association Park Perpetual Care Trust. The church sent back an get downance offer that made changes to the original offer. Pernal acknowledged know of the offer and sent a letter to both parties that the original offer still stood. The church sued Pernal for breach of contract saying their offer was an enforceable contract. The question is will the church win? No, because the church did not accept the original offer. It changed the original offer and that change was not legitimate by Pernal so there was no breach of contract by Pernal.Chapter 11 Pr oblem 7 Cantu had a contract as a particular Education teacher for the 1990-91 school years. Cantu hand-delivered her resignation to the school super and a letter of acceptance was mailed to Cantu by the superintendent on the same day. Cantu changed her mind, but the superintendent hand-delivered a letter telling Cantu the resignation had been accepted and could not be withdrawn. Cantu sued because her resignation was hand-delivered and the superintendent mailed his acceptance. The question, is this a good argument? No, it is not a good argument, because there was no pledge in Cantus letter of resignation regarding the manner in which the superintendent must accept her offer of resignation. Therefore the superintendent had every remedy to use the mail to accept the resignation.Chapter 12 Problem 10  toy Construction was promised a incentive by Scroge if they bangd a manufacturing plant addition by a certain date and on time. Scroge also promised to establish the suppl ier a higher price for the materials needed to complete the addition by the date required. Scroge then refused to pay the bonus or pay the higher price for the materials. The question is, were these promises enforceable? Scroge is obligated to pay because there was an offer, new consideration, and an agreement to the new terms to modify the contract. The grind addition was completed on time by Tinker, so the bonus should be paid, and Scroge agreed to the new higher price of the supplies.