Requested Remedies Case Study

Cameron, P., (2012). Defending a Company in a Breach of Contract Lawsuit in San Diego

When a business breaches a contract, serious consequences can occur resulting in damages and losses. An expected service or agreement that is not complied with impacts everyone involved. A breach of contract can reduce earnings while also potentially harming future profits. It also puts a company’s value at risk if it cannot satisfy demands for products or meet deadlines. Often, monetary damages result from breach of contract claims. Claims are most often made by party who met its requirements against the party it alleges has not. Damages involved are typically lost revenues, sales impacts involve claims for lost value, and added costs resulting from the breach. Damages estimates are made using historical information and projections to support a plaintiff’s claim

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.

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

On June 23, 2008, Formula One Racing Group (referred to herein as “FORG”) solicited bids for the building of a parts warehouse at its facility located at 1265 E. 20th Street in Chico, California. General Contracting Associates (referred to herein as “GCA”) entered into a contract with FORG to build the aforementioned warehouse. At the time of the signing of the contract, FORG and GCA were bound in privity. In this case GCA had asserted five claims for breaches of contract by the defendant FORG.

I am getting the attached error messages for PO#319686? I erroneously received only CLIN 1 in receipt of (527254) when it should had been 4 CLINs received. Can you please delete this receipt? Also, the system is prompting Amount Only Purchased line over received on receipt (1) error message?

Petersen could sue for compensatory damages. Within the Sons of Thunder case, a jury found the defendant (Borden Inc) to have breach its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by terminating the contract and the jury awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages of $412,000, which the plaintiff would have received if the contract had been fulfilled (Sons of Thunder, Inc v Borden, Inc, 1997). Thus, Mr. Petersen could seek compensatory damages for lost profits which would have been gained if the contract had not been breach. Mr. Petersen could also seek remedies for the breach. The U. C. C. provides laws by which a buyer may obtain remedies for a breach of sale contract. Under section 2-716, the buy could compel the seller to fulfill the contract (specific performance) and has the right to recover damages after the contract’s cancellation (U.C.C. §2-716, 2012). But specific performance mandates by courts are rare (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015); therefore, Mr. Petersen should seek compensatory damages for breach of

Three of the greatest needs of children in the Richmond area are money, medicine, and education. Some ways to obtain money for children in need would be to have plenty of fundraisers and donation boxes. Frequently, people in Richmond could come to a local park and participate in games designed to raise funds and create awareness for children in poverty. Donation boxes could be placed around the city to collect funds.

Thus, the following remedies are proposed to deal with the situation. First, MSL and Macy’s must come together in the presence of their legal experts to mend their differences. Although, it is not clear from the cases whether MSL decided to breach the case out of ignorance or out of gluttony, it is nonetheless critical that both parties hold a joint session. Mending strings will enable both parties to sit down and review the scope of their contracts. It appears from Macke (n. pag.) that Macy’s does not seem to let bygones be bygones, which shows that MSL and Macy’s need to sit down and urgently resolve their differences.

This is an intentional tort action against a grape producer involving a breach contract between my health food products business and a grape producer and distributor. In the words of the Honorable Allen M. Linden “Tort laws have a noble mission and opportunity to help people in trouble. The injured and the bereaved desperately require tort lawyers to help them retake whatever is left of their lives that can be retaken with money” (Linden, 2005). I seek restitution for compensatory damages for loss of revenue, pain and suffering due to the broken contract. As well as, to make my company whole again and place it back in the financial position it was before the breach occurred. This intentional tort has caused harm to the economic interests of my company (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2015). The family produce company started selling my health foods products business Muscadine grapes and sales grew at a rapid rate. I have become dependent on the distributor to deliver the product and the price and rate that he has in the past. However, upon being faced with an opportunity to do business with more profitable customer, he decides that he no longer can provide produce with my company, leaving me out to find another distributor, potentially more expensive.

The office manager Joan Schwartz is looking over your entire family’s charges to make sure that they are correct. After she is done looking and Reviewing she will personally write you another letter. We are sorry for the inconvenience of your bill you received.

Explanation of current problem requiring Corrective Action, including specific date(s) and example(s) (attach any additional documentation):

In response to the plaintiff’s claim the defendants made three key arguments. Firstly, they argued that their claim for damages for breach of the MOU was unsustainable as the agreement to negotiate was uncertain and therefore unenforceable. Secondly, the matters pleaded would not constitute a case for breach of MUO even if it was enforceable. Thirdly, that the plaintiff’s alleged estimate for damages is defective as the ‘facts by which the alleged loss or loss were sustained are [were] not pleaded’. Despite that the plaintiffs maintained

The majority and minority judgments took alternative approaches in determining the measure of damages for breach of contract. The majority’s approach is preferred as they gave effect to the purpose of the contract by awarding the cost of curing the breach.

Sherwood v.Walker is a case of enormous significance from American contract law that involved mistake made by both parties. This mistake was as a result of the barren nature of a cow that both parties could not make it out when their contract was being negotiated. This paper analysis and provide an outline of the facts in the case, discusses the legal issues involved, the approach took in addressing the legal issue, how the court applied its approach to the facts of the case and a detail example of how the court’s conclusion might be applied in a modern business setting.