Anderson Brick Inc. Case Study

Mr. Slim Jim verbally submitted an offer to Mr. Potbelly who proceeded to accept Mr. Slim Jims’ offer unequivocally (pg. 122). The “Basic Requirements of a Contract” (pg. 107) were completed. In this bilateral contract (pg. 107), “Communication of Acceptance” (pg. 123) was evident as Mr. Potbelly responded “Sure I’ll take it” when Mr. Slim Jim submitted an offer for the pottery and enthusiastically replied “I’ll take it!” when Mr. Slim Jim gave him an offer of cash for his home. As a result of this, Mr. Slim Jim is suing for the “right to obtain specific performance” asking that the agreement be upheld. Also, according to “admissions” (one of the “exceptions to the statutes of frauds” (pg. 175) Mr. Potbelly’s agreement should be upheld.

Baugh, the higher courts decided not to accept the common law verdict and to actually overturn its ruling, replacing it with a new and updated holding. The key reasons for that decision were that this particular doctrine had not been reviewed in that court in over 40 years, making the information very outdated in the modern times. This was especially important because the assumptions included in this ruling were about building practices no longer applicable in modern construction. One point made was that modern contractors place most of their work out of sight where it cannot be examined by land owners. In addition to that, majority of today’s landowners do not have the knowledge to inspect work and note mediocre results. The changes to the Doctrine of Completion and Acceptance will affect liability by now placing an increased responsibility on the contractor for safe and complete work. Now, moving forward, the contractor is liable for any injury resulting from defective work (Meiners, 2012, pp.

Tiller Construction Corporation entered into two contracts with Nadler, the CEO of Glenmar, where Tiller would do “the work” for Nadler at Westridge for $637,000 and the other for Tiller to do “the work” for Nadler at Cranberry for $688,800. Nadler agreed to be personally liable to Tiller for the payment of both contracts. When the job was done, Nadler refused to pay the remaining balance of $229,799.46 for the Cranberry project and a remaining balance of $264,273.85 for the Westridge project. So Tiller sued Nadler for the amount owed, plus interest, costs, and attorney’s fees.

Robert Chuckrow Construction Company (Chuckrow) was employed as the general contractor to build a Kinney Shoe Store. Chuckrow employed Ralph Gough to perform the carpentry work on the store. The contract with Gough stipulated that he was to provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment, scaffolding, and other items necessary to complete the carpentry work. Gough’s employees erected 38 trusses at the job site. The next day, 32 of the trusses fell off the building. The reason for the trusses having fallen was unexplained, and evidence showed that it was not due to Chuckrow’s fault or a deficiency in the building plans. Chuckrow told Gough that he would pay him to reerect the trusses and continue work. When the job was complete, Chuckrow paid Gough the original contract price but refused to pay him for the additional cost of reerecting the trusses. Gough sued Chuckrow for this expense. Can Gough recover?

40. Principle of Law: In this case, Esposito hired Excel Construction Company to repair a porch roof. All terms of the agreement were specified in a written contract. And the dispute occurred when Excel had repaired the rear porch roof because in the agreement failed to specify whether it was the front or rear porch that needed repair. Under civil law, two parties here had signed a civil contract in writing. Because the contract failed to specify clearly front or rear porch roof, Excel completed its obligation and didn’t break the contract.

DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. WILSON 'S ESTIMATE OF THE COMPANY 'S LOAN REQUIREMENTS? HOW MUCH WILL HE NEED TO FINANCE THE EXPECTED EXPANSION IN SALES TO $ 5.5 MILLION IN 2006 AND TO TAKE ALL TRADE DISCOUNTS?

Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Cross-Defendants had no intention of completing the reconstruction improvements within four months because, among other thing, the first document, the Work Authorization, was signed on August 21, and the permit was not submitted until December 7, 2015.

Was it acceptable that the plaintiff uses the down payment for damages? The appellants looked to K.S.A. 84-2-718. The appellants attempted to state that the contract sale date should be August 23rd not September 21st and that there should be a subtraction of $500 dollars from the $1000.00.

Plaintiff Van Dunk was a laborer by defendant James Construction Company who hired excavator contractor to work on pond. Key is the superintendent for the project who is aware of OSHA safety and he knows the OSHA required everyone in the field to be protected. This also consider those who work in the excavator ,so they can be safe from cave-ins. However, the superintendent did not require and type of safety protection to make the trench stable. So the trench was constructed with zero safety and protection. While working in the trench employees had struggled lining the trench with fabric, so the plaintiff offered and volunteered to go down into the trench and help his co-workers to fix it. Key did not allowed him to go down into the trench

The error was obvious and can be proven as the owner forgot unintentionally to “insert the number of weeks specified by the tender in the appropriate blank.” The contractor asked to be given the opportunity to show to the court and to the owner his estimate.

At the time of the subject accident, the Plaintiff was working as an employee for Oak Lease Service Company, LLC (“Oak Lease”). The Plaintiff was not an employee of this Defendant. At the time of the accident, Oak Lease was working under a Master Service Agreement with this Defendant to provide services related to this Defendant’s production of oil and gas. This Defendant had also entered into a Master Service Agreement with American Oilfield Supply, Inc. According to the Plaintiff, Bill Perry, an employee of American Oilfield Supply, Inc., and Jorge Espinoza, an employee of Oak Lease, were directing and/or supervising the Plaintiff at the time of the subject accident.

As is all too often the case, a payment dispute accompanied the conclusion of this substantial construction project. In early 2007, Metropolitan refused to pay WCS several million dollars due for the labor and materials furnished to the project. (E. 917). As such, WCS filed a complaint to establish a mechanic’s lien. (Id.). In consideration for WCS’s release of

The Edinburg Housing Authority has consistently done an outstanding job serving the low-income families in the Rio Grande Valley for more than 65 years. Receiving and supervised by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Therefore, it is vital to maintaining the organization's nonprofit status.

In mid-September 2005, Ashley Swenson, the CFO of large CAD/CAM equipment producer must choose whether to pay out profits to the firm¡¦s investors or repurchase stock. On the off chance that Swenson pays out profits, she should likewise settle on the extent of the payout.

1. Is it unethical for a company to intentionally understate its earnings? Why or why not?