Grand Canyon Bus340 module 3 assignment

| March 14, 2016

Question
Using the Module 3 readings, course website links, the GCU Library, the Internet, and/or other sources of literature as needed, complete the following problems:

Chapter 9 – Problems and Problem Cases: Problems 9 and 10
Chapter 10 – Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 6
Chapter 11 – Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 7
Chapter 12 – Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 10
Responses should not typically exceed 200 words for each problem

Chapter 9 Case Study: Stephen Gall v. McKeesport Municipal Water Authority

Stephen Gall and his family became ill after drinking contaminated water supplied to their home by the McKeesport Municipal Water Authority. They filed suit against the utility, arguing, among other things, that the utility had breached the UCC implied warranty of merchantability when it sold them contaminated water. The utility moved to dismiss their complaint, arguing that since water was not “goods,” the UCC did not apply. Should the Galls’ complaint be dismissed?

Chapter 9 Case Study: Schumacher v. Parents

In 1994, Schumacher and his wife and their two daughters moved to Finland, Minnesota, to operate a bar and restaurant called the Trestle Inn, which was owned by his parents. Schumacher claims that his parents induced him to leave his previous job and to make the move by orally agreeing to provide him a job managing the inn for life and to leave the business and a large parcel of land to him when his first parent died. Schumacher was given free reign in managing the inn and was allowed to retain all profits of the business but was not given any salary or wage. While he was operating the inn, Schumacher used his own funds to build a home for his family

on his parents’ land, install a well, buy equipment for the business, and develop various marketing tools for the business. In the fall of 1998, Schumacher suspected that his parents were about to sell the inn and the adjoining property. He brought suit for a restraining order to prevent them from doing so, claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment, among other claims. In October 1998, the parents notified Schumacher that his employment at the inn and his right to possess the adjoining property were terminated. The parents moved for summary judgment. The trial court held that Schumacher’s oral contract claim was invalid because the contract needed to be in writing under applicable Minnesota law. However, does Schumacher have a valid claim for unjust enrichment?

Chapter 10 Case Study: Pernal v. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church

Pernal owned a parcel of real estate adjacent to property owned by St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. Pernal sent a letter to the church indicating that he was offering it for sale for “$825,000 cash/mortgage, ‘as is,’ with no conditions, no contingencies related to zoning and 120 days post closing occupancy for the present tenants.” This offer was dated June 3, 2003, and expressly provided that it would remain open for a two-week period. On the same day, Pernal also sent

the same offer to sell the property on the same terms to another prospective purchaser, White Chapel Memorial Association Park Perpetual Care Trust. On June 4, the church sent a letter indicating that it accepted the terms of the offer that Pernal had set forth in his letter. However, the church’s letter also referenced an attached purchase agreement. The purchase agreement

agreed with Pernal’s purchase price and the close occupancy period, but contrary to the offer, it contained additional terms. The church’s president signed this attached purchase agreement, but defendant did not sign it. The offer by letter dated June 3, 2003, did not reference other potential purchasers. On June 10, White Chapel, by letter, offered to pay $900,000 cash for the property, with no conditions or contingencies related to zoning and 180 days post closing occupancy rent

free. On that same date (June 10), Pernal sent a letter to both potential purchasers. This letter indicated that “amended offers” had been received. The letter further provided that the offer would remain open for two weeks’ time as provided in the initial offering letter. On June 13, the church sent a letter to Pernal, stating that the offer had been accepted on June 4, and that an enforceable contract was formed. The church sued Pernal for breach of contract. Will it win?

Chapter 11 Case Study: Cantu v. San Benito Consolidated Independent School

Cantu was hired as a special education teacher by the San Benito Consolidated Independent School District under a one-year contract for the 1990–91 school year. On August 18, 1990, shortly before the start of the school year, Cantu hand-delivered to her supervisor a letter of resignation, effective August 17, 1990. In this letter, Cantu requested that her final paycheck

be forwarded to an address in McAllen, Texas, some 50 miles from the San Benito office where she tendered the resignation. The San Benito superintendent of schools, the only official authorized to accept resignations on behalf of the school district, received Cantu’s resignation on Monday, August 20. The superintendent wrote a letter accepting Cantu’s resignation the same day and deposited the letter, properly stamped and addressed, in the mail at approximately

5:15 pm that afternoon. At about 8:00 am the next morning, August 21, Cantu hand-delivered to the superintendent’s office a letter withdrawing her resignation. This letter contained a San Benito return address. In response, the superintendent hand-delivered that same day a copy of his letter mailed the previous day to inform Cantu that her resignation had been accepted and could not be withdrawn. The dispute was taken to the state commissioner of education, who concluded that the school district’s refusal to honor Cantu’s contract was lawful, because the school district’s acceptance of Cantu’s resignation was effective when mailed, which resulted in Cantu argued that the mailbox rule should not apply because her offer was made in person and the superintendent was not authorized to accept by using mail.Is this a good argument?

Chapter 12 Case Study: Tinker Construction v. Scroge

Tinker Construction had a contract with Scroge to build a factory addition for Scroge by a particular date. The contract contained a penalty clause exacting daily penalties for late performance, and Tinker was working hard to complete the building on time. Because prompt completion of the addition was so important to Scroge, however, Scroge offered Tinker a bonus if it completed the factory addition on time. Scroge also learned that the supplier of parts for machinery that he had contracted for had called and said that it could not deliver the parts on Scroge’s schedule for the price it had agreed to. Because there was no other supplier, Scroge promised to pay the requested higher price. The factory addition was completed on time and the parts arrived on time. Scroge then refused to pay both the bonus to Tinker and the higher price for the parts. Were these promises enforceable?

Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code: ESSAYHELP
Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code: ESSAYHELPOrder Now