Marshall Petersen And The Muscadine Grapes

Have you ever been done wrong? Have you ever been done wrong under a contract and faced sufficient damages causing a loss? Chapter 18 focuses on contract remedies, and how damages to a party are compensated. When a party breaches a contract, under the law the court can give the injured party an equivalent of what the promised performance would have rewarded. The two cases I chose to discuss are the Arrowhead School District No. 75, Park County, Montana v. James A. Klyap, Jr. case and the Parker v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. case. Both of these cases provide us with a very good explanation of different types of damages, and how the court came to a conclusion based off of the different scenarios. Throughout the remainder of this article, it will briefly discuss the details of each case, the similarities and differences among them, and how your business clients can use these cases to strategically prevent future legal issues of similar nature.

In this essay, the focus is on whether it is morally objectionable for a person to recover damages from another’s breach of contract that results in a better financial position than they would have been if the breach had not occurred. This is because in deciding whether to preserve the principle in Clark, law-makers would place high regard on the analysis of Clark’s normative outcome. The following points are the key arguments against awarding a sum to a higher pecuniary advantage??? Such as Clark, which can be subsequently rebutted in this analysis with “normative” research.

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

4 (TCO D) SpongeBob is a farmer who contracted with Progresso to provide 6 tons of clams worth $3,000/ton to be delivered at Progresso each month. Progresso needs this particular amount of clams each month for their soup in order to meet their production expectations for their customers. The contract contained some very lopsided provisions that excused Progresso from purchasing the clams in the event of many outlined reasons (25 pages of the contract listed out all of the reasons why Progresso could refuse to accept the clams), but prevented SpongeBob from selling his clams elsewhere without permission. After a gulf coast oil disaster, the price of clams went up to $8,000/ton. SpongeBob delivered his clams to Progresso on time, but Progresso (who had lost a case filed against Progresso by Campbell's for infringing on Campbell's clam chowder soup recipe) refused to accept delivery. SpongeBob requested permission to sell the clams to Campbell's (who had just doubled their own clam chowder sales), but Progresso refused to grant permission. The terms of SpongeBob's contract with Progresso stated, "In no event will Progresso's refusal to accept delivery of clams excuse SpongeBob... can SpongeBob sue and recover, and what will be his damages? What defenses does Progresso have? Can Progresso include Campbell's in the lawsuit? Is the animal rights group a potential

In this article, Justine Kirby (2000) analyzes the basic law, section 11 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, and acknowledged routines for "exchanging" commitments, and after

The Grape producer which was my wife’s Sunday school teacher and I entered a professional business relationship after I revealed to him that I was interested in expanding and growing my business by adding new product lines. Subsequently, he introduced me to the Muscadine products that his family produced, resulting with me sampling the products and ultimately because of the product line success, I increased shipments and heavily promoted the items with marketing and advertising. Moreover, because of the Grape Producer’s ability to supply me with all the product I needed when I needed it, and at the consistent prices over the last 6 months I decided to formalize our implied contract in which both merchants provided product for payment without a formal written contract (Kubasek et al., 2016). Nonetheless, because of the trust for the Grape Producer’s outstanding record of integrity through actions and words reveals “let your yes be yes or no be no; and anything more than that comes

Don Willetts is a member at your church and owns a health food production business. He has taken interest and is interested in selling Scuppernog grapes that your family sells. Don started to sell the product and it is quickly becoming a top seller. Don is normally late on his payments but since he is a close church friend he does not get charged late fees. Last week, your son stopped by Don’s store to deliver the products. Without your knowledge, your son signed a contract, requiring the company to keep providing Scuppernong grapes to Don, at its current price. Later, a new company asked you to sell them the product at twice the price, with the requirement to sign a contract with them. You decide this would be

There is a chapter in Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath where the Joad family pulls into a government-run camp. After weeks on the road, spending the nights in Hoovervilles—under bridges, alongside ditches and streams, anywhere with a water source—they find themselves in an organized camp. There are designated campsites, fresh water faucets, and—wonder of wonders—a building that houses restrooms, showers, and laundry facilities. There is a chain-link fence around the place to keep the residents secure, and a manager who watches the gate and collects a nominal fee. But the camp is essentially run by a committee of the residents. All residents must do their part to keep the place safe and clean.

However, the only agreement that Martin had implied was with the restaurant, which was made in good faith. Furthermore, the restaurant failed Martin because of their neglect to maintain their company’s property, which intern lead to the theft.

​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.

This report examines the nature and evaluation of Burger Ranch’s further demands of monetary compensation for their lost profits of six months.. The purpose of this report is to provide you with the necessary legal and statistical information in deciding the most effective course of action with regards to the recovery of lost profits owed to Burger Ranch.

After drinking one evening in December 1952, the defendant, Zehmer wrote a contract on a restaurant bill which indicated that he agreed to sell his farm for for $50,000 to the Plantiff, Lucy. Zehmer later insisted that he had been intoxicated and thought the matter was a joke, not realizing that Lucy had been serious.

If I elect to stop doing business with Marshall, what legal causes of action might he bring against my company, what damages or remedies might he seek, and what legal defenses might my company have? Before I can make that determination, I must first understand all the legal ramifications of such a case. Exclusive dealings and promissory estoppel are two legal concepts they may work in favor of Marshall. However, the age of

The plaintiff Leonard used drastic interpretations of substantive and contract law to express his understanding of the Pepsi Stuff promotion. Plaintiff feels if "an advertisement is clear, definite, and explicit, and leaves nothing open for negotiation [then] it constitutes an offer, acceptance of which will complete the contract"(Leonard v PepsiCo, 6). In such a case, an advertisement that is so specific leaves no grounds for questioning, therefore a contract is formed. The plaintiff attempts to stretch the boundaries of unilateral contracts claiming that PepsiCo made a clear offer and that he should receive the reward promised for his performance of the specified act. This is backed by the commanding 1892 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. case stating, "If a person chooses to make extravagant promises…he probably does so because it pays him to make them, and if he has made them, the extravagance of the promises is no reason in law why he should not be bound by them" (Leonard v PepsiCo, 6). The plaintiff claims that the commercial posed an offer to him and through this offer he should be granted a reward even though there is no legally binding

According to the information provided to us, you and Elvis Cain concluded a contract regarding the purchase of a Fish and Chips store in January of 2015. However, statements made to you about the assets of the business did not match the assets found, statements were made about the businesses profitability and viability that may or may not have been true at the time as well as information was deliberately withheld regarding the opening of competing Fish and Chip