Get 2 days of premium access
Study Guides (370,000)
US (220,000)
LSU (10,000)
BLAW (100)
BLAW 3201 (100)
Final

BLAW 3201 Study Guide - Final Guide: Certiorari, Primo Carnera, Punitive Damages


Department
Business Law
Course Code
BLAW 3201
Professor
Mary Fry
Study Guide
Final

This preview shows pages 1-2. to view the full 8 pages of the document.
BLAW FINAL CASES
CHAPTER 15 CASES:
1. Rosewood Care Center, INC. v. Caterpillar, INC.
Suretyship/Main Purpose Rule
Supreme Court of Illinois, 2007
o Betty Joe is working for Caterpillar and gets hurt on the job.
o Worker’s compensation protects the employer from liability.
o Management at Caterpillar verbally agrees to send Betty Joe to Rosewood Care
Center, Inc.
o Betty Joe begins rehab and racks up $181,000 of bills.
o Caterpillar is claiming that Betty Joe is liable for the $181,000.
o The trail court hears Caterpillar’s motion for summary judgment and agrees to
dismiss the case.
o There is no writing, signed by Caterpillar promising to pay if Betty Joe doesn’t
exist.
Citing the statute of frauds
Rosewood’s argument is two fold:
o They dealt directly with us and procured the services and told us to invoice them
for it.
o They made an original promise to us that does not need to be in writing to be
enforceable.
If they were sureties, then they received this debt for their own economic benefit to get
Betty Joe back to work.
The appellant court reverses the summary judgment and sends it back to the trial court.
o They think one of those situations are right, but they aren’t sure which one.
o It is a well placed discussion in a suretyship analysis.
2. Mackay v. Four Rivers Packing Co.
One Year Provision
Supreme Court of Idaho, 2008
o The contest is over whether or not an agreement that Mackay struck verbally to
keep him until when he retires in ten years.
o Within a short time after that, Four Rivers Packing fired him.
o Since he could have retired at any time, then it was possible that Mackay could
have retired within a year.
The statute of fraud does not apply.
The appellant court sent it back to the trail court.
The courts only care about possibility not probability.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

BLAW FINAL CASES
3. Kalas v. Cook
Specially Manufactured Goods
Appellate Court of Connecticut, 2002
o Kalas agrees to print all of Simmons’s stuff and deliver.
o Kalas owns the print shop and the town claims ownership Kalas decided to go
out of business.
o Kalas gives all of these materials to Simmons Simmons dies.
o Her executor (Cook) is now taking over her assets She has a $25,000 debt.
The court acknowledged the specially manufactured goods contract.
If there is a verbal agreement on the sale of the goods, it is okay if the goods can prove to
be highly customized for one particular party.
An oral contract is okay.
4. Dahan vs. Weiss
Compliance with the Statute of Frauds
Supreme Court of New York, 2014
o The defendant Michelle Weiss is the principal of the defendant Gateveer, LLC.
o Gateveer purchased seven properties in Far Rockaway, Queens, from the Alaska
Group, Inc.
o Plaintiff alleges that he held a mortgage in the sum of $650,000 on the seven
properties pursuant to an oral loan agreement with the Alaska Group.
o Plaintiff further claims that as part of the purchase price for the properties, the
defendants orally agreed to assume the mortgage held by him and repay the debt
within four months.
o Plaintiff demanded payments from the defendant
Plaintiff argued that emails written were proof of statute of fraud court ruled that email
messages at best showed there were negotiations for an agreement.
The trial court properly granted the defendants motion to dismiss the complaint
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

BLAW FINAL CASES
CHAPTER 16 CASES:
1. Reiser v. Dayton Country Club Company [In Re Magness]
Rights That Are Not Assignable: Person Rights
United States Court of Appeals, 1992
o There is an exclusive golf membership.
o There are many rules and procedures to qualify people to be allowed to be part of
the golf membership.
o Two of the members of this club have financial problems, and they file for
bankruptcy.
o The country club says that this is not an assignable contract and even if it is, it is a
person contract.
o It is not just about playing golf but cultivating personal relationships.
o Therefore, it is not subject to assignment.
Appeals affirmed the bankruptcy court’s original statement of an anti-assignment clause.
2. Aldana v. Colonial Palms Plaza, INC.
Express Prohibition of Assignment case
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991
o Landlord and tenant situation
o The landlord has a cupcake company coming in to lease the building.
o There is a clause that has an anti-assignment clause.
o The landlord applies for an $11,500 construction allowance.
o In order for the landlord to pay the tenant, the tenant has to do the work and
complete it.
o The tenant runs out of money and approaches Robert Aldana.
o Robert gives the tenant $8,000 in exchange for an assignment.
o Robert wants to check to him, not the tenant.
The assignee (Robert) has the right to the money, not the assignor (tenant).
o The landlord issues a check to the tenant once the construction is complete.
o Robert is suing the landlord for the money he is owed.
o The landlord wins at trial because there was an anti-assignment clause in the
contract.
o The tenant did not assign the contract, they just allowed assignment of a monetary
right not obligation or right.
The assignment was not of the lease (which would have been prohibited), but only of the
right of payment of the construction allowance.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version