Business Law 2301: Response to the Scenario of Kellerher Funeral Home vs. Gonzaga Construction

Identify the battery issue involving defendants Green and DeVon in the case of Paur v. Rose City Dodge, Inc

The case involving Birch & Davis International, Inc., and Warren M. Christopher, the United States Secretary of State was decided on September 13th, 1993. The case involved procurement procedures conducted by the Agency of International Development (Open Jurist). The issue centered on exclusion of bids made by Birch & Davis International, Inc. Birch challenged the exclusion to the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals and they decided that the actions taken by the agency were fair. The case got to the Federal level when Birch appealed the decision by the board.

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.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting was a Supreme Court decision regarding the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which penalized businesses and proprietors in Arizona that hired illegal immigrants, and required that businesses check the citizenship status of their potential employees using the e-verify system. Various civil rights groups as well as businesses, collectively titled “Chamber of Commerce”, claimed the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act preempted these statutes in the Arizona law. The state law was upheld in 2011.

Plaintiff does not need assistance from the Defendant for suit monies nor does the Defendant have the ability to pay for her attorney.

Professional Building Maintenance Corporation versus the School Board of the County of Spotsylvania is a 2012 case decided by the Virginia Supreme Court. The appellant, Professional Building Maintenance Corporation, challenged the School Board of the County of Spotsylvania on several issues including the use of “Best Value” as the method of procurement. To understand the case, one needs to understand why “best value” came about in Virginia, what was the definition of “best value”, and what laws governed “best value” procurements.

Kenneth Brewer 9738 Upper Little Creed Rd., Bangor, Pa. 18013 (484) 515-3052 was advised of the identity of Investigator Sean P. Brennan and of the confidential nature and purpose of the interview, Brewer, provided the following information:

Eisenberg made claim of sexual harassment and told of employees using illegal substances in the warehouse

California business law offers considerable freedom for workers to work where and for whom they wish, effectively voiding nearly all noncompetetition agreements in the state. While this may seem like an onerous burden on businesses, the corporate law attorneys at DPA Law Group explain that this eliminates legal ambiguity while offering enough protection for businesses concerned with their trade secrets.

Consideration is a promise or performance that the promisor demands as the price of the promise. Past consideration is something that has been performed in the past and which, therefore, cannot be consideration for a promise made in the present. Promises made to another based on moral obligation lack consideration and are not enforceable. Services performed by one family member on behalf of another family member are presumed to have been rendered in obedience to a moral obligation without expectation of consideration. An example of past and moral consideration would be the hypothetical we are discussing. A binding contract does not exist between Gerwin and Baker because the element of consideration is missing. The consideration for Gerwin's

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

After completion of the Contract Creation and Management simulation the following legal issues were noted. There were problems with this contract from the beginning because the specifics of the contract were ambiguous from the start. The companies involved developed a contractual relationship by evidence of an offer, acceptance of the offer and valid and legal consideration, which in this case is money for services rendered. However, the deliveries were behind schedule, and the quality of the work was not acceptable by C-S, who was now considering rescission of the contract.” Rescission is an act to undo a contract.” (Cheeseman, 2010 pg. 254). C-S is

The statement in this question is “Consideration is the concept of legal value in connection with contracts. It is anything of value promised to another when making a contract. However, “past consideration is not considered a good consideration”. Please illustrate your answer with reference to 3 articles and case laws.”

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

For this assignment the writer is going to discuss the nature and types of construction contracts and will explain the legal responsibilities of the various parties involved in the design and the construction process.