Marshall Petersen And The Muscadine Grapes

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.

I invested a significant amount of time to prepare for the Byrnes, Byrnes & Townsend negotiation meeting. I represented Mrs. Townsend, the plaintiff in this case and I chose co-operative strategies and tactics for this negotiation exercise. For me to address the liability and evaluate the case, I had to divide the facts in four categories: weaknesses and strengths of the opponent, weaknesses and strengths of my case. From the class discussions, I learned that the success of the negotiation directly depends on the preparation stage, therefore, I carefully assessed the obtained information, evaluated interests of both parties, set out substantive, intangible, and procedural goals, developed mine and my opponent`s BATNA, set the limits, and implemented negotiation strategy and tactics.

On October 29th, 2015, I made the trip to small claims court at the Superior Court North County Division in Vista, California. The case I observed was a contract dispute between Michael Mendell and Ediga Narashima. The plaintiff (Mendell) was sueing the defendant (Narashima) for $4,000 over a breach of contract. Narashima had given Mendell the opportunity to build theatre system and a bookshelf for his home. They both came to an agreement that the total cost of this procedure would be $4,100. Mr. Mendell is a professor at APT College where he teaches telecommunications. Mendell claims that the full $4,100 was never paid to him. During the whole process of the build there was many setbacks and problems that arose. Mendell claimed that while he was working on this home theatre project, he missed out on work and money he could have obtained from his other job as a professor. That is the reason why he is sueing Narashima as well as the fact that Mendell claims Narashima did not pay him his final installment of $300 for the job. Ediga Narashima claims that the final installment was paid through a friend or third party named Mario Diaz. Mario was a friend of both the plaintiff and defendant. He had referred Mendell to Narashima for the job. Mendell counterclaims that he had never received the final installment from Mario. The big question is to whether Mario had payed the final installment to Mendell as they agreed in

In this case, there are several important issues to note. The initial issues is that a contract was signed by a minor acting on behalf of the company and not by a specified owner of the company. The question here is if this contract is legally binding and what recourse of actions the parties may have. The first step would be to consider the legality of the contract. In order for a contract to be legal it has to possess several important criteria. Contracts have to be communicated to the parties it effects clearly. (Kubasek 2015). In this case, the contract was not communicated at all to the owners of Muscadine grapes and it was also not

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

case brief---Gregory, a comedy writer, entered into a contract with Wessel, a comedian. The contract provided that Gregory would provide Wessel with a 15 minute monologue for his upcoming appearance on the comedy hour and Wessel will pay $250 to Gregory. All performers could make $500 per appearance on the comedy hour. and when Wessel was scheduled to aper on the comedy hour, Gregory informed him that he was unable to provide the monologue, because last time Wessel was asked to make special guest appearances at three local comedy clubs performance during the comedy hour. and Wessel bought lawsuit to Gregory for beach of contract and request damages of $1250.

This case is about the slotting allowance when Allied Old English Company wants to introduce the Sorrell Ridge spreadable fruit product into the California market. Considering the factors including product itself, market, distribution channels, consumers’ needs& demand, competitor’s profiles, we analyzed the negotiating power and weakness of Sorrel Ridge and Bromar.

Rush Johnson Farms Inc., brought suit against Missouri Farmers Association Inc., (MFA) for $4,094.60 which Johnson claimed to be the balance due for soybeans sold to MFA. This case presents for the first time in Missouri the question of

The set-forth agreement is between Marshall Peterson and Barfield Family Farms. Marshall Peterson retains the right to buy Muscadine grape and other antioxidant products by the Muscadine seeds from Barfield Family Farms at any quantity requested. Barfield Family Farm’s billing rates shall be the same as those outlined in the price schedule in the terms of this contract and shall not exceed $8 per gallon. Marshall Peterson and Barfield Family Farm shall perform in good faith in by following the proposed services found in the outlining pricing schedule. This agreement commences upon the signing of this

To summarize the case of Kim v. Son, Jinsoo Kim invested in two of Stephen Son’s corporations, which eventually failed, and Kim lost his money. Son felt bad, he and Kim got together and became very intoxicated and signed a “contract” in blood, stating that Son promised to pay Kim the money he lost and Kim agreed not to sue him. As it turned out, when Son sobered up he refused to keep his promise to pay Kim, so Kim filed a lawsuit based on this bloody contract. The judge declared the contract void due to lack of consideration (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson, 2013).

​The issue at hand is whether or not Pine Trees, Inc. should compensate Mr. Washington for reconstruction and lose of potential profit. The stakeholders in this situation are employees and employers of both Pine Trees, Inc. and Burger Ranch, creditors of both companies, investors (if any), and customers for both companies. The issue will be observed from a Utilitarian, Deontological, and Nicomachean perspective.

Most conflicts scholars and courts now recognize the principle that the parties to a contract generally may agree upon the law which will govern their relationship.' "One of the few non-controversial maxims of conflicts is that the autonomy of the parties should be given great weight.” While the principle of party autonomy has only recently achieved preeminent and almost uncontested status in American conflicts of

In examining the contract with Marshall there are a number of factors to consider. I would have to examine all of the professional, legal, and spiritual implications of deciding to part ways with doing business with his store. Marshall was an intricate part of getting the grapes initial recognition and the impending financial success may not have been possible without his willingness to promote the grapes in his store. Without taking the proper steps to rectify this situation in a peaceful manner, I might experience a backlash depending on Marshall’s potential decision to bring this issue before the court of public opinion. The interest in my products might decrease depending on how he chose to spin his story regarding our fallout

The “cow case” became a very famous case in 1887, and for generations after that, law students have study this particular case. Part of the appeal of this case is the simplicity of it and country settings, which is two farmers bargaining about the price of a cow.

This case is about a joint venture between the American company Blue Ridge which is owned by Delta Foods and the Spanish company Terralumen in Spain. Problems arose because of disagreement concerning the future growth rates set by Delta which are considered as unrealistic by Terralumen.