Who Is Walter Smith's Contract?

The customers, Charles Ellison and Susan Bresler represented by the Atlanta law firm Strickland Brockington & Lewis sued the Natural Gas Company “under a private right of action in the Gas Act.” The plaintiffs sought to recoup their overpayments charged through the defendant’s violations of the Natural Gas Competition and Deregulation Act (Natural Gas Act). The defendant asked the court to dismiss the case due to the plaintiff’s failure to establish a reasonable claim on which repayment should be given. A trial court granted a motion to dismiss the case, but an

Deep Topics and others file a suit against CCS, alleging infringement of the plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights. Which type of intellectual property is involved in this situation? What is CCS’s likely defense? How is a court most likely to rule? Explain. 7) On May 1, Brand Name Industries, Inc. (BNI), sent Carol a letter, via overnight delivery, offering to employ her to audit BNI’s financial statements for the current year for $10,000. In the letter, BNI stated that Carol had ten days to accept. On May 5, Carol sent BNI a fax that stated, “The price for the audit seems too low. Would you consider paying $12,000?” BNI received the fax. The next day, Dan offered to conduct the audit for $8,000. On learning of Dan’s offer, Carol immediately emailed BNI, agreeing to do the work for $10,000. BNI received this e-mail on May 7. Explain why BNI and Carol do, or do not, have a contract.

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

-the facts: an anti-nuclear protest group sent an application to seek permission to rent a room. The Alliance hoped to use the room for a dance. The Adjutant general mailed a contract offer to the Alliance, agreeing to rent on specific terms. The offer required a signed acceptance. The day that Cushing received it he signed it and put it in the office’s outbox. The next day Cushing received a call stating that the offer was being withdrawn, and although Cushing said he had already accepted the general stated that it was withdrawn. They brought suit against Governor Thomson. The court ruled that a contract had been formed and Thomson appealed.

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.

1. You recently retired from government contracting work and established a consulting company (fully consistent with government ethics laws and rules, of course) with the primary focus of advising potential government contractors and subcontractors. Mr. Johnny Jones, of The Johnny Jones Flooring and Construction Company has approached you with a question. Jones and his company are potential subcontractors (they, obviously, specialize in flooring) on a federal construction contract worth a little over two million dollars ($ 2,000,000.00) recently awarded to the Jimmy Smith Construction Company (Jimmy Smith, the prime contractor). Neither Johnny nor his company have ever been part of a government contract

It was a pleasure to meet with you last week. This memo is in regard to your concerns that you mentioned during our meeting and my recommendation for each one. Please review this memo and call me if you have any questions. 1) John Smith tax issues: a. How is the $300,000 treated for Purposes of Federal Tax income? Gross income means” all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to the following items: Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items…..” (http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Internal_Revenue_Code:Sec._61._Gross_income_define d#Location_in_Internal_Revenue_Code) According to IRC Publication 3402 Taxation of Limited Liability Companies “an individual owner of a

In order to attempt and find a solution to this question, the court decided to address a sub issue. Could Taylor’s mistake on the bid be a result of a material mistake. If so, it would fall within the conditions of

Facts: Richardson hired JC Flood Company to clear a stoppage in the sewer line of her house. JC Flood used a “snake” for the job, but it became stuck. To release the snake, JC Flood had to excavate a portion Richardson’s yard. During the excavation, JC Flood discovered additional problems in the water pipe adjacent to the sewer line that required to be replaced in accordance to public regulation. The water pipe needed to be fixed at the moment or at a later time, which would then require the yard to be excavated again. JC Flood repaired the defective water pipe. Richardson inspected the work on a daily and did not object to the additional work required for the water pipe. Once the work was completed, Richardson refused to pay any part of the total bill and JC Flood sued Richardson for the cost of labor and materials furnished (Mann & Roberts, 2014).

Facts: The University of Utah was in need of a women’s Gymnastics training facility so they subcontracted Fox Construction, Inc. to complete the project. For the soil and ground work Fox Construction, Inc. subcontracted with Gary Porter Construction. Gary Porter Construction, Inc. performed their work based on specific plans as well as some work outside of the plans. The combined total from the planned project was $146,740. The additional work completed at Fox’s request cost Gary Porter construction additional costs and Fox refused to pay for the additional work done outside the subcontract.

In the following case, names of all clients and parties involved have been changed in order to comply with laws and rules of Confidentiality and HIPPA.

The defendant, Celestica Limited, an IT company, needed to move equipment from Staffordshire to Shropshire. The claimant, Pickfords Limited, is a project moving and moving management service company that negotiated the moving project with Celestica Limited. There were three documents involved in this case. The first document was a fax, dated September 13, 2001 from Mr. Dawson of Pickford Limited to Mr. Spencer of Celestica Limited. The offer estimated 96 loads, cost for crew, fuel, vehicle, pack, load, and unload at 890.00 plus VAT per weekday, packing materials approximately 500 units at 2.50 each, and an

Harriet runs a professional cleaning service whereby she requires a specific vacuum. Thus Harriet orders an industrial strength vacuum cleaner at the cost of £5000 from Super Suckers Ltd. However the vacuum 's power supply which is required to operate the vacuum is missing therefore making it unusable. Harriet therefore was unable to fulfil a contract to clean a client 's (Sully) house, which had substantial consequences. Additionally Harriet 's car was damaged on the afternoon she should have been cleaning the client 's house. Due to Harriet consequentially being unable to clean Sully’s house he sold it for £60,000 less than expected. He therefore sues Harriet for the loss of the £60,000.

He stated that the additional benefit that Roffey derived by way of Williams’ timely performance of his contractual obligations was sufficient consideration to render Roffey’s promise enforceable. Following the breach of contract, Williams claimed £10,847 worth of damages. However, the trial judge, with whom the Court of Appeal (COA) sided, only awarded £3,500. The test for determining whether a contract could be altered legitimately was established as follows: 1)If A has a contract with B for work, 2) before it is done, A has reason to believe B may not be able to complete, 3)A promises B more to finish on time, 4) A obtains in practice a benefit, or obviates a disbenefit from giving the promise, 5)there is no economic duress or fraud...

64) Instead of working with the Plaintiff the Defendant took a bid for approximately $2 million more than ERI 's qualified bid.