WEEK 2 ASSIGNMENT RUBRIC

GM 597 - Business Law: Strategic Considerations for Managers and Owners

The following list of requirements for the Assignment is colored GREEN for items that are focused, accurate, and covered in a substantive way. The items colored in ORANGE are not well focused on the call of the exercise, lacking in sufficient detail to demonstrate good comprehension of the concepts involved or otherwise are in need of improvement. Items colored in RED are missing altogether.

ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION

Points

STUDENT PERFORMANCE

End of Chapter Question 14.2: Identify the applicable legal issue; Propose a legal resolution of the case; Describe reasons to justify your conclusion. Answers should be 1-2 paragraphs in length.

10

Student correctly identified the legal issue in the case. Student proposed a legal resolution of the case. Student described reasons to justify the proposed legal resolution: Reasons involved reasonable interpretations of the factual situation. Reasons logically supported the proposed legal resolution.

Students answer is between 1 and 2 paragraphs in length. End of Chapter Question 16.10: Identify the applicable legal issue; Propose a legal resolution of the case; Describe reasons to justify your conclusion. Answers should be 1-2 paragraphs in length.

Student correctly identified the legal issue in the case. Student proposed a legal resolution of the case. Student described reasons to justify the proposed legal resolution: Reasons involved reasonable interpretations of the factual situation. Reasons logically supported the proposed legal resolution.

Students answer is between 1 and 2 paragraphs in length. This was an issue of whether filing a potentially meritorious law suit could be considered to constitute the tort of wrongful interference with contract. See below for details.

Week Two Homework Problems:

14.2 In 1955 Mr. Briggs and his wife were record owners of a home located at 167 Lower Orchard Drive in Levittown, PA. The Briggs made a down payment of $100 and mortgaged $11,600 for 30 years. In 1961 the Briggs fell behind on their mortgage and offered to sell the house to the Sacketts if they would pay the arrearages and make future payment to the mortgage. The Sacketts occupied the home since 1962. In 1976, Mr. Briggs filed an ejection action in equity against the Sacketts. The Sacketts responded that although the Briggs was record owners of the home, the Sacketts were the equitable owners by virtue of an oral agreement for sale entered into in 1962. They further contended that in 1961, the Briggs were in financial difficulty and did not want the house to be sold at a sheriffs sale because of the absence of a resale market at that time. The Statute of Frauds is not applicable where the party seeking to enforce an oral agreement has partially performed under the oral contract so that failure to enforce the oral contract will be unjust. Read more: Statute of Frauds - Briggs v. Sackett, 418 A.2d 586, 1980 Pa,Super.Lexis JustAnswer http://www.justanswer.com/law/1dknz-statute-frauds-briggs-v-sackett-418-a2d-586-1980-pa-super-lexis.html#ixzz1dAws0zhq 16.10. We are called upon to decide whether a cause of action in tort may be stated for intentional interference with contractual relations or intentional interference with prospective economic advantage when it is alleged defendant induced a party to a contract to seek a judicial determination whether it may terminate the contract according to its terms. We have concluded that to allow either cause of action to be stated when the only interference alleged is that defendant induced the bringing of potentially meritorious litigation would be an unwarranted expansion of the scope of these torts and a pernicious barrier to free access to the courts. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal. . . . Since it is not alleged that Bear Stearns's conduct has made PG&E's enjoyment of the benefits of its contract more expensive and burdensome, apart from forcing PG&E to defend a costly lawsuit, and since it is not alleged that the lawsuit was brought without probable cause and that it terminated in plaintiff's favor, plaintiff has not stated a cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations or prospective economic advantage. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. v. BEAR STEARNS & CO. 50 Cal.3d 1118 (1990) http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx? page=1&xmldoc=1990116850Cal3d1118_11168.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-19862006&SizeDisp=7

18.2 The first count of the complaint claims that the pool was installed by the defendant in May, 1969, at the plaintiffs home in Shelton, that the pool was not of merchantable quality, and was in breach of the defendants implied warranty of merchantability, in that had the following defects: (a) the vinyl liner was improperly installed, (b) there were six or more large flaps in the liner, (c) all four corners of the liner were wrinkled and folded, (d) there were multiple wrinkles and folds in the liner, (e) there was inadequate support under the plywood deck, resulting in the deck being uneven, unsteady, and dangerous to persons using the pool, (f) there were multiple surface bubbles on the plywood decking, (g) the hopper portion of the deep end of the pool was improperly located and constructed, (h) the sides of the pool were bowing out, and the 2x 4 wooden supports were rotted, twisted and misaligned, (i) the plywood panels of the deck and of the sides of the pool, and the wooden members and sills supporting those panels, were rotted and defective, (j) the workmanship of the installation of the 2 x 4 members supporting the deck was defective, and (k) the entire swimming pool was not level.

In the present case it is obviously impossible, or extremely difficult, to effect a separation of the labor or services from the material and equipment. The two component parts do not readily permit that cleavage. The plaintiffs did not offer any adequate evidence on the apportionment issue at trial. The plaintiffs had the burden of proof to establish the existence of a warranty under the UCC, and they failed to do so. Accordingly, it is found that the 1969 agreement herein was not a transaction in goods, within the meaning of [ 2-102], or a sale of goods, under [ 2-105(1)]. The plaintiffs claim under the first count cannot be sustained. GULASH v. STYLARAMA, INC. 364 A.2d 1221 (Conn. Com. Pl. 1975)
20.3.

Seller of boxes to be used for packing tomatoes brought breach of contract action against buyer. Buyer counterclaimed, alleging that boxes were not fit for their intended purpose because they collapsed during shipping and storage, thereby damaging fruit. Buyer claimed damages in amount of $25,000, and for $3,900 worth of boxes remaining in inventory that were unfit for use. The Supreme Court, Sosa, Senior Justice, held that: (1) doctrine of collateral estoppel could not be used to bar buyer from recovering certain damages; (2) seller breached implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose; (3) statute governing express warranties by sample or model could not be used by seller as defense; and (4) buyer was entitled to recover price of boxes and consequential damages.