10-7 breach of contract: Roger Bannister was the director of technical and product development for Bemis Co. He signed a covenant not to compete that prohibited him from working for a “conflicting organization” for eighteen months following his termination, but required Bemis to pay his salary if he was unable to fi nd a job “consistent with his abilities and education.” Bemis terminated Bannister. Mondi Packaging, a Bemis competitor, told him that it would like to offer him a job but could not do so because of the noncompete agreement. Bemis released Bannister from the agreement with respect to “all other companies than Mondi” and refused to pay his salary. released Bannister from the agreement with respect to “all other companies than Mondi” and refused to pay his salary Inc., another Bemis competitor.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denied him six months of benefits after the year he had made the additional money that disqualified him for the benefits. The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) denied his petition for review claiming that the advice he had received from OPM would allow them to deny his benefits under this regulation. Key Legal Issues Charles appealed the denial of his benefits to the MSPB, and claimed that he had been given the wrong information from the specialist. The MSPB board denied his claim and said he should have reached out to the proper officials to get the right information. Basically the MSPB put the ball back in Charles Richmond ballpark saying he should have known better.
v. Hardison. The Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison case involved an employee who put forth a claim for religious discrimination because the employer was unable to accommodate his religious beliefs. An accommodation was made for Hardison early on in his employment, but once he relocated to another group his prior arrangement changed. The reason he was unable to select specific days off was due to a seniority status provision put in place by a collective bargaining contract with the Union. Title VII does not require an employer to deviate from a seniority system in order to give an employee shift preference.
On August 18, 2004, the plaintiff moved to strike the defendant's answer based upon the defendant's failure to produce a representative. The defendant countered this claim by arguing that it made meticulous efforts to reaching Monforte by sending him letters to appear and to contact the company. In a final letter it even stated that if he failed to be in contact he would then be issued a subpoena. It was not until after this claim that the court was then informed that Montforte was no longer an employee of Robin’s Wood, Inc. Monforte was in fact subpoenaed to appear and did not, the following month, the Supreme Court granted the motion to strike the defendant's answer. This in evidently meant that the plaintiff would be granted a default judgment and would be granted what they were asking.
Question 2: What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Facts in favor: There are several facts that are in favor of Chou for intent to contract. The first is that an oral distribution agreement as met, and that an email was sent by BTT with the agreement terms that included price, time frames, and the obligations of both parties. Also after the draft was again requested via fax by BTT it was immediately sent with no timely rejection. Facts against: In the original negotiation agreement it was stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing.
Basaquiat, I believe that it could go either way. Basaquiat wrote a contract stating that Rosenfeld made a deposit for particular paintings and signed it alone with Rosenfeld signature even though it was in crayon. Some people would look at this as a legal binding contract regardless of how or what it was written with. Two signatures, the purpose of the contract, and the correct date the contract was signed, shall be binding. Others will argue that the crayon written letter would not be enough evidence to win a lawsuit and the other side could argue the point of the contract being written in
Portfolio Project #3 No suppression for ‘no knock’ search Hudson was upset because he felt the entry of his home was unlawful and a violation of the knock-and-announce rule. Hudson argued that, police will now feel that they can skip past the knock-and-announce rule with no exclusionary rule sanction. Hudson brought forth that there were a few published decisions to date that announced big damage awards for numerous knock-and-announce violations. Hudson felt there wasn’t a difference in his case. Antonin Scalia noted that the “knock-and-announce” rule is constitutionally mandated.
You decide week 6 The stock should not be purchase by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones acquiring the assets, liabilities and also would inherit the contractual obligations of the selling corporation, would, be the results of the purchase. In lay terms, he has bought the existing Smithon Corporation and he is responsible of ensuring daily operations run efficiently but the tax aspect of acquisition he is responsible for existing and any future tax liabilities that the selling corporation had. It would be my advice for Mr. Jones to not buy the stock because of the liability of current and future tax obligations which Mr. Jones would incur from the purchase of the stock. Since the tax identity of Smithon corporation would have not ceased, it is not
Litronic refused to accept them, arguing that he 90-day warranty period had lapsed. RULE: KNOCKOUT DOCTRINE. When the seller’s and buyer’s terms differ materially, the two terms cancel each other out, and the contested term is supplied by a Code gap-filler. Posner points out, however, that he would prefer a rule that says all additional terms are different terms and vice versa, thus UCC 2-207(2) about additional terms should apply, unless materially alter the contract. Prof. Goldberg, on the other hand, suggests a “best shot” rule, where all terms in one form should be enforced based on their relative fairness.
Barbara Perez Breach of Contract PA300: Real Estate Law Prof: James Roche March 3, 2015 To: Barbara Buyer Date: 3/2/2015 From: Barbara Perez, Paralegal Re: Action on terminated property sale at 123 Van Buren Street, North Bergen, NJ 07047 I am contacting you in regards to the issue indicated. There are quite a few ethical issues in your businesses with Mr. Sam Salesperson and Seller. For instance, Mr. Salesperson did not produce the appropriate contract concerning the earnest payment on the two occasions where he had promised to do so. He also did not practice impartially as a dual agent and appeared to be biased towards the seller. It was even more unethical not to disclose the agreement that had been in the works with the other