Scribd Feed for category: LawThis is a feed for documents in the category LawCanadian Industrial Alcohol Co. v. Dunbar Molasses Co.- August 28, 2008 Supervening Impracticability Case: Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co. v. Dunbar Molasses Co. (1932, NY) pp. 818-820 Facts: P contracts to buy 1.5 million gallons of molasses, but D only delivers a small portion. D says that it was reliant their supplier and could not get more; thus the contract was impracticable. D argues that there was an implied term in the contract that made their duty to deliver proportionate to the refinerys willingness to supply. Issue: Can a contracting party avoid...http://www.scribd.com/doc/5252230/Canadian-Industrial-Alcohol-Co-v-Dunbar-Molasses-Co- Taylor v. Caldwell- August 28, 2008 Supervening Impracticability Case: Taylor v. Caldwell (1863, ENG) Facts: D agrees to let P use the Surrey Gardens and Music Hall to put on four grand concerts for 100 each. After the agreement, the Music Hall burns down. P wants the money from the expected profits of the show. There is no express language saying that burning down is a condition that would excuse performance. Issue: Yes. Holding: Can a contracting party avoid performance if it is no longer possible Court says P cant...http://www.scribd.com/doc/5252208/Taylor-v-Caldwell- Mineral Park Land Co. v. Howard- August 28, 2008 Existing Impracticability Case: Mineral Park Land Co. v. Howard (1916, CA) Judgment for P; D appeals. Procedural History: Facts: K for D to take from P all the earth and gravel they would need for the construction of a bridge. D took 50,131 yards from P, then procured 50,869 yards from elsewhere. P brings the suit for D breach of K, alleging that P's property had all the earth and gravel D would need. Trial court found for P, and awarded the price for the 50,869 yards of earth and gravel that.http://www.scribd.com/doc/5252171/Mineral-Park-Land-Co-v-Howard Lowy v. United Pacific Insurance Co.- August 28, 2008 Constructive Conditions of Exchange: Case: Parties: The Avoidance of Forfeiture Lowy v. United Pacific Insurance Co. (1967, CA) Plaintiff - Lowy (owners) Defendant - United Pacific (contractors) Judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Procedural History: Facts: Parties entered into a K for contractors (D) to perform excavation and grading work on lots and streets owned by P. After D performed 98% of the work, a dispute arose regarding payment of $7200 for additional work necessary bc of..http://www.scribd.com/doc/5252093/Lowy-v-United-Pacific-Insurance-Co Britton v. Turner- August 28, 2008 Constructive Conditions of Exchange: The Avoidance of Forfeiture The Avoidance of Forfeiture Note: Britton v. Turner is a landmark case Case: Parties: Britton v. Turner (1834, NH) Plaintiff - Britton (laborer) Defendant - Turner (employer) Judgment for P; D appeals. Procedural History: Facts: The plaintiff and defendant made a one-year employment contract. The plaintiff stopped working after 9.5 months, wo a good cause. D refused to pay P for his services since he did not fulfill the entire.http://www.scribd.com/doc/5252136/Britton-v-Turner- O.W. Grun Roofing and Construction Co. v. Cope- August 28, 2008 Constructive Conditions of Exchange: Case: The Avoidance of Forfeiture O.W. Grun Roofing and Construction Co. v. Cope (1975; TX) Facts: Parties contracted for Grun Roofing to install a new roof on Copes home for $648.00. The contract specifically described the color of the shingles that were to be put on the roof as a russet glow. Grun Roofing described this color as a brown varied color, and further acknowledged that it was obligated to install a roof of uniform color. After installation of.http://www.scribd.com/doc/5252067/OW-Grun-Roofing-and-Construction-Co-v-Cope Jacob & Youngs v. Kent- August 28, 2008 Constructive Conditions of Exchange: The Avoidance of Forfeiture Note: Jacob & Youngs v. Kent is a famous opinion by Judge Cardozo. Case: Jacob & Youngs v. Kent (1921; NY) Facts: P built country residence for D and due to some oversight, installed some other brand of plumbing pipes than the ones promised (Reading). D asked P via the architect to do the work all over again (since it wasn't what was specified in the K). Because the pipes had already been encased within the walls except in a few..http://www.scribd.com/doc/5252025/Jacob-Youngs-v-Kent Clark v. West- August 28, 2008 Express Conditions: Excuse of Express Conditions Case: Clark v. West (1908; NY) Facts: Parties entered into a written contract under which the P was to write and prepare for publication for the D a series of law books. The K bound P to abstain from alcohol during the course of his employment in order to receive a higher per page rate. P did not entirely abstain from drinking liquor while he was writing and D in turn refused to pay P the higher per page rate. After P had completed a three...http://www.scribd.com/doc/5251952/Clark-v-West- Palmer v. Fox- August 28, 2008 Constructive Conditions of Exchange: Case: Palmer v. Fox (1936; MI) Historical Development Facts: K for sale of property. D was to pay the balance of the purchase price (about $1400) in monthly installments within 5 years. D stopped paying after a while, and P sued for the balance ($709.02 + interest). D claimed that P failed to perform covenants of the K. Specifically, P failed to cinderize or gravel the streets as per the K. Lower court found for P and D appealed. D argued that because...http://www.scribd.com/doc/5251985/Palmer-v-Fox Wal-Noon Corp. v. Hill- August 28, 2008 Express Conditions: Nature and Effect Case: Parties: Wal-Noon Corp. v. Hill (1975; CA) Plaintiff - tenant Defendant - landlord Procedural History: Facts: D leased property to P. Lease agreement said that D responsible for all repairs and replacements of the roof unless due to P's negligence. Problem with the roof, but D not informed. P replaced the roof at a $8k cost. Later, they discovered the lease provision and requested D reimburse for the roof replacement. D refused, saying that they did..http://www.scribd.com/doc/5251928/WalNoon-Corp-v-Hill- |