Project Of Constructing The New Luxury Apartment Complex

15–1. Liquidated Damages. Carnack contracts to sell his house and lot to Willard for $100,000. The terms of the contract call for Willard to make a deposit of 10 percent of the purchase price as a down payment. The terms further stipulate that if the buyer breaches the contract, Carnack will retain the deposit as liquidated damages. Willard makes the deposit, but because her expected financing of the $90,000 balance falls through, she breaches the contract. Two weeks later, Carnack sells the house and lot to Balkova for $105,000. Willard demands her $10,000 back, but Carnack refuses, claiming that Willard’s breach and the contract terms entitle him to keep the deposit. Discuss who is correct. (See Damages.)

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 that Wessel would pay Gregory $250. All Performers on the comedy Hour make $500 per appearance. As Gregory knows, the last time Wessel appeared on the Comedy Hour he was asked to make special guest appearances at three local comedy clubs using the same monologue. Wessel earned a total of $750 for the three performances. Shortly before Wessel was scheduled to appear on the comedy Hour, Gregory informed Wessel that he was unable to provide the monologue. As a result, Wessel was forced to cancel his appearance. Wessel sued for breach of contract and requested damages of $1,250. What will result? Issue, -

iii. The three launch payments fit the before stated criteria of substantive payments. The contract signing payment and negotiation payment do fit the criteria because these payments are not proportionate to the vendor’s performance, do not relate solely to past performances, and are not “reasonable relative” to all of the deliverables and payment terms.

In Scots law, there are generally two available self-help remedies for material breach: retention and rescission. ‘Retention’ is the suspension of the innocent party’s obligations (MacQueen, 2010) while ‘rescission’ is the termination of the contract for fundamental non-performance; it is a remedy used to bring a contract to an end so the party is no longer bound to carry out its obligations (Scottish Law Commission, 2017).

It is agreed by many, if not all, that the compensatory principle is the ruling principle in breach of contract

Contracts can be discharged by complete performance or material non performance of the contractual duty. For example: A contractor does not do any work promised on a bathroom, or almost none, then the homeowner does not owe him anything. Therefore, the homeowner - the non breaching party is discharged and the contractor is liable for the breach of contract (lectriclaw, 2012).

Termination of an employee while under binding arbitration agreement possibly constitutes a breach of contract by the employer, if it violates the rights of the individual employee.

This case illustrates the presence of conditions precedent, implied conditions, substantial performance, and breach of contract (material).

B- Performance of the contract has become impossible or the purpose of the contract has become frustrated.

The contract asked for a luxury suite with an ocean view and all day access to the swimming pool and beaches.

In the year 2000, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company paired with luxury real estate developer Millennium Partners to build a $225 million hospitality complex in the heart of Washington DC. This 300-room hotel was set to be the first out of a six-hotel deal between these two companies. The structure of the deal was that Millennium Partners would be the owners of the properties and The Ritz-Carlton would manage them.

This gives the employer enough reason to terminate the contract as he did. The termination of the contract under present circumstances is valid.

The points at issue of law in this case involving Neocort, the employer and Pat, the employee are related to employment law and specifically whether Pat, the employee of Neocort was properly discharged from his employment with the company. Prior to entering into employment with Neocort Pat signed an employment agreement which stated that that should his job performance be deemed unsatisfactory that Neocort would: (1) notify him of the deficiency in his work; (2) place him on a Corrective Action Plan (CAP); and (3) upon failure to improve to a satisfactory level within the specified period of time, that he would be terminated. Pat acknowledged that he had signed the employment agreement as an 'at-will' employment contract however, the contract contained 'expressed' agreements for the process of termination should the employment of the employee, Pat, be found as deficient by Neocort, the employer. The company, Neocort failed in all aspects of the termination process agreed upon between the company and the employee in that the company: (1) failed to notify Pat of deficiency in his work; and (2) failed to place Pat on a Corrective Action Plan (CAP); and (3) failed to allow Pat the time in which to improve his work to a satisfactory level.

2. Severability clause refers to clause in a contract where it states that if few parts in the contract are confined to be illegal, the other parts of the contract should still apply. Here in this case The Oklahoma court sustained the Act without any mention to the severability clause.

Under the general heading of the Quasi contract there has been grouped a number of cases which have little or no affinity with contract. A simple illustration is afforded by the action to recover money paid by mistake. If the plaintiff on an erroneous interpretation of the facts, pays to the defendant a sum of money which he does not really owe, law, no less than justice, will require he defendant to restore it. But his obligation is manifestly not based upon the consent, even in the extended meaning borne by the word in the English law, and its description as a quasi contractual liability serves only to emphasize its remoteness from any genuine conception of contract.