onics, ventures,," ).” The price quotations did not include important terms other than pricing. Most “significantly, the price quotations do not reference the quantity term—JCI's requirements—that both parties agree was a term of their agreements ("Q.c. onics, ventures,,").” If each quotation were an offer, “the requirements term would be knocked out by UCC 2–207("U.c.c. - article,"). leaving no quantity term.
Disposition: It is ordered that the defendants are enjoined from conducting a show case hearing, revoking the plaintiffs’ license pursuant to these ordinances. Comments: The court did not address the issue of whether or not Westerly Town Council will be ordered to review their ordinances to ensure they are constitutional. I agree with the ruling of the court
The parole evidence rule requires, in the absence of fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or something of the kind the exclusion of all prior or contemporaneous oral or written evidence that would add to or vary the parties’ integrated written contract.”(Mallor, 2013, Pp448-451). Therefore, paying the taxes by the seller would be considered as if it “supplement, change, or contradict the terms of the written contract”. The contract also contained a clause requiring any modifications of the contract to be in writing, and Dyer failed to include the salesperson’s promise in writing. The court ruled the case in favor of Walt Bennett Ford. http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19820414_0043514.AR.htm/qx Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt (2013).
IV. Issue Contract interpretation is a question of law reviewable de novo. When the meaning of contractual language is plain and unambiguous, construction is not necessary. If a contract is found to be ambiguous the rules of construction apply. Whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law.
According to Cheeseman (2010, chap.33, p. 513), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in “decisions regarding dismissal”, thus Pat can sue NewCorp as he signed the employment contract legally binding both parties. NewCorp may therefore be liable for both breach of contract and wrongful dismissal, but it may use it rights to dismiss an employee at will. Vermont is named as one of
The appellate court reversed the trail court’s ruling that Winkle was entitled to the profit – sharing bonus. The court held the opinion that since Winkle has not been paid his salary and bonus, therefore the contract had not been executed. “Section 1698 of the Civil Code provides: A contract in writing may be altered by a contract in writing or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise.’… “Section 1698 has a dual operation. On the one hand it invalidates oral contracts of modification that are unexecuted, and on the other hand it validates executed agreements that might otherwise fail for lack of consideration...”(668 P 2d
The issue before the court was whether “an employer has an obligation to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a vacant equivalent position when the employer has an already established policy to hire or promote the most qualified to the position” (Twomey, 2013, p. 566). The appeals court reversed and ruled in favor of Wal-Mart. The appeals court reasoned that automatic reassignment is not required and that the ADA is not an affirmative action statute. The employer had an established nondiscriminatory hiring policy that required everyone to compete so Huber was required to compete. The appeals court held that an employer is not obligated to reassign a qualified disabled employee over a more highly qualified applicant for the position.
2. Single economic Unit Rationale: Adams v. Cape Industries, which rejected the ‘single economic entity’ rationale expressly, but rejected the agency arguments only on the grounds that an agency was not established in the facts of the case. Thus, the position arising from Adams is that a group of companies cannot be treated as one on the sole ground that the companies are part of the same economic group. However, if it can be established that a company habitually acts according to the wishes of one shareholder, then a factual agency can very well be established. This would allow the Courts to lift the corporate veil.----- 3.
The principle, Butler, is not liable for torts caused by the third party/independent contractor. The respondent superior does not apply to this case since Sandidge is an independent contractor. Because Butler did not have any control on how Sandidge performed their work, there is no ground for Pugh’s to sue for wrongful death. In fact, Sandidge should be held liable for not meeting safety standards since Mr. Pugh was technically employed by Sandige. “For a general contractor to be liable for its independent contractor's acts, it must have the right to control the means, methods, or details of the independent contractor's work.
TERMINATION CLAUSE UNDER JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT: AN ANALYSIS The dissolution and termination of a joint venture are governed by partnership law relating to dissolution and termination. In areas where the Uniform Partnership Act (Act) is applicable, dissolution and termination of a joint venture is governed by relevant provisions contained in Act. However if there is any written agreement made by joint venture parties to the contrary, then such written agreement would determine a joint venture’s dissolution. A joint venture can be terminated in the following situations: * if there is an agreement between joint venture parties to terminate a joint venture; * if it is apparent that a joint venture is not profitable * on death of a joint venture member if service offered by such joint venture member cannot be substituted by another person. * A joint venture can also be dissolved by judicial dissolution.