MGT 240 OM
Braddock v. Braddock-case study
1. Accordingly, the order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin Diamond, J.), entered October 17, 2007, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, should be modified, on the law, the motion denied in part so as to reinstate the first, second, third, seventh, eighth and eleventh causes of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The reason being was that John had reason to believe that David would treat him with good faith and integrity because they were family made john reliance on Davids assurances reasonable.
2. They disagreed on the fact that John, being a professional by his own words, could not have thought that such a deal would be 100% profitable. John was well aware that such a venture would be a high risk endeavor that has no “assurances” or “guarantees”. The outcome could only be an expression of expectation that would depend on forces not in their power.
3. I believe that David was unethical in his actions towards his cousin. Yet, I feel that John didn’t think about the problems that may lay ahead and jumped too fast. John should not have relied on what David told him. John did a lot of damage to himself by agreeing to many aspects like agreeing to be a worker at will. It was stated that John also knew that David had a previous issue when working in the oil and gas industry that kept David unemployed in the past.
4. Employment and contracts should always be clear and concise in the wording that both parties clearly understand all elements. Everything should be understood by both parties upon entering into an employment contract of this importance.
5. Warburg Pincus would not want someone like John as an executive because Warburg had a substantial amount of capital involved in the business and would not want someone that he felt was not experienced enough to handle the amounts of money invested....