BMGT380 Final Exam Study Cases

35 Pages
155 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Business and Management
Course
BMGT 380
Professor
William Mc Clenahan
Semester
Summer

Description
Pass v Shelby Aviation Supp Chapter 9 Introduction to ContractsFactsoMax Pass owned and piloted a single engine Piper airplaneoOn April 15 1994 Pass and his wife left Florida in the plane bound for Tennessee Somewhere over Alabama the couple flew into turbulence Pass lost control of the plane and it crashed to the ground in Alabama killing the PassesThe administrators of the Passes estates brought a lawsuit for breach of express and implied warranty under the UCC against Shelby Aviation which is a fixedbase operator that services aircraft at an airport in Tennesseeo4months before the Passes fatal flight Pass took his plane to Shelby aviation for inspection and service In servicing the plane Shelby Aviation replaced both rear wing attach point bracketsThe Passes estates claimed that the rear wing attack point brackets sold and attached by Shelby Aviation were defective because they lacked the bolts necessary to secure them to the planeComplaint stated that Shelby Aviation employees failed to provide and install the bolts and that the missing bolts resulted in a failure of both wings of the plane to withstand the torque applied to an aircraft during turbulence leading to Passs loss of control of the plain and ultimately causing the crashoShelby filed for a motion to dismiss arguing that its contract with Pass had been primarily for the sale of services rather than goods and so the transaction was not covered by the UCC oTrial court ruled against Shelby Aviation Shelby Aviation appealedIssuesoDoes the contract between Pass and Shelby Aviation fall under common contract law or the UCCHoldingsoReversed and Remanded for Shelby AviationGravaman test and predominant factor test both used to determine whether something governed by UCC or Common LawGravaman Testlooks at the portion of the transaction upon which the complaint is based to determine if it involved goods or servicesPredominant factors testlooks at the transaction as a whole to determine whether it involved goods or servicesoIn this case if it falls under goods warranty will be applicable if it falls under services warranty will not be applicableCourt determined that Shelby Aviation is a service business and it is clear that Pass took his airplane to Shelby to have service performedHurdis v Town of North Providence Supp Chapter 9 Introduction to ContractsFactsoHurdis Realty owns a building situated at the corner of Charles Street and Mineral Spring Avenue in North Providence Frank Hurdis president of Hurdis Realty was informed that the sewage was not flowing properly from the buildingoHurdis employed a plumber who determined that the cause of the blockage was located past Hurdis Realtys property line somewhere under Mineral Spring AvenueHurdis proceeded to the North Providence town hall where he requested that the town council president remedy the problemThe council president stated that before he could order any repair work he needed a report from the sewer superintendent The superintendent went to the site but failed to observe a blockage oHurdis hired a private sewer contract who located a blockage caused by a broken pipe Under Mineral Spring Avenue Hurdis obtained a permit to excavate and the private contractor repaired the damaged pipeoHurdis spent 477329 on repairs and presented its clam for reimbursement to the town council The claim was not satisfied oHurdis realty sued Town of North Providence under a quasicontract theory Trial court held for HurdisoCase was appealed to Supreme Court of RIIssuesoWas there a quasicontract between Hurdis and Town of North ProvidenceHoldingsoDecision affirmedA municipality may be liable upon the principle of unjust enrichment when it has enjoyed the benefit of work performend and when no statute forbids or limits its power to contract therefore Town is empowered to assess users of the sewer system and utilize the revenues for maintenance of the system Plaintiff spent its own funds to repair a damaged portion of the towns sewer lines The plaintiff clearly conferred a benefit upon the town and fulfilled what was essentially the towns responsibilityIt would be unfair for town to benefit from the plaintiffs work without having to pay the value of the benefitHolt v Home Depot USA Inc Supp Chapter 9 Introduction to ContractsFactsoBruce Holt worked as a manger for Home Depot from 19951999 Throughout those years Home Depot ensured employees through statements in the employee handbook and other means of communication that if they took advantage of the companys opendoor procedure to complain to management about their supervisors they would not be penalizedoIn 1999 Home Depot sent Holt to Connecticut so he could manage a new distribution centeroSoon after he started there he began having difficulties and disagreements with his immediate supervisor Ms Gray Holt contacted a senior manager Brian Bender regarding his problems with her He later called Hope Depots Impact Line to ask that forms be sent to him so he could make a formal complaint Later in the month two senior Home Depot managers went to the distribution center accompanied by Gray and terminated Holts employmentoHolt sued Home Depot claiming Promissory Estoppel Jury found in his favor and awarded him compensatory damagesHome Depot moved for relief of several kinds including judgment as a matter of law and a new trialIssuesoWas Home Depot liable for Promissory EstoppelHoldingsoHome Depots motions denied in favor of HoltIn order to win this claim Holt must proveHome Depot made a clear definite promise that it would not retaliate against employees for using its internal complaint procedure Home Depot reasonably should have expected plaintiff to rely on the promiseHe did reasonably rely on itHis employment with Home Depot was terminated as a resultEnforcement of the promise is necessary to prevent injusticeCourt found that all of these things were trueMeram vs MacdonaldFactsAllianz Sales invited Frank Meram to attend a presentation on September 29 2005 to meet Robert McDonald who was presenting his new book Cheat to WinMcDonald was a multimillionaire who built LifeUSA a billion dollar company which was owned by Allianz at the time of the presentationMeram along with 100 other financial representatives were in attendance at the presentationAt the beginning of the presentation McDonald announced that one of the attendees would leave that day with 1 million dollars oAll that was required was to place a business card in the basket that was being passed around and to stay for the entirety of the presentationoMeram placed his business card in the basket and attended the presentation until the endAt the end of the presentation McDonald pulled Merams business card out of the basketoMcDonald stated that Meram would receive 1 dollar a year for a million yearsoMcDonald gave Meram 100 in cash to cover the first 100 years
More Less

Related notes for BMGT 380

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit