Docstoc feed for: Education->Law School

خد فكرة وذاكر بكرة

ahmededu2010 — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:37:31 GMT

shared by: ahmededu2010 on: Saturday, November 28, 2009

1 1 1 1www.tazpet.com1 2 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 134www.tazpet.com5 1971 74 6 713www.tazpet.com213 3 22 3 1 2 112www.tazpet.comwww.tazpet.com

BAE case study- intro

bhtan1017 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:31:54 GMT

shared by: bhtan1017 on: Tuesday, November 24, 2009

This is a BAE system case study

BAE system- issues case study

bhtan1017 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:31:51 GMT

shared by: bhtan1017 on: Tuesday, November 24, 2009

This is a BAE system case study

RE Davis Chemical Corp v Diasonics Inc

vandywolfer — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:02:30 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Tuesday, November 24, 2009

R.E. Davis Chemical Corp. v. Diasonics, Inc. 1987Damages > Expectation Damages > Lost Volume Seller Contracts – pg619 – 11/24/09Parties: Π – Buyer ∆ - Seller - Manufacturer of Medical Diagnostic Equipment Procedural History: - Π sued ∆ for restitution for down payment o ∆ claimed it could offset that amount by lost profits under UCC2-718(3) -

Temple v Synthes Corp

vandywolfer — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:17:52 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Temple v. Synthes Corp. 1990Joinder > Parties > Compulsory > Rule 19 CivPro – pg771 – 11/24/09Parties: Π – Jewelry Store ∆ - Mall Procedural History: - Π intentionally brought separate suits against manufacturer and doctors/hospital - ∆ moved to dismiss under Rule 19 to join the other parties o Court directed to join or dismiss  Π join so

Helzbergs Diamond Shops v Valley West Des Moines Shopping Center

vandywolfer — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:02:31 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Helzberg’s Diamond Shops v. Valley West Des Moines Shopping Center 1977Joinder > Parties > Compulsory > Rule 19 CivPro – pg774 – 11/24/09Parties: Π – Jewelry Store ∆ - Mall Procedural History: - π sued Iowa ∆ in Missouri in Federal Ct based on Diversity Jx for injunctive relief to stop breach of lease - ∆ moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 19

Speller v Sears Roebuck and Co

vandywolfer — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:50:59 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 23, 2009

Speller v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 2003Strict Liability > Product Liability > Defects Torts – pg773 – 11/14/09Parties: Π – Deceased from Fire ∆ - Refrigerator manufacturer, Seller, & Property Owner Procedural History: - Summary Judgment granted for ∆ for showing an alternate cause (stovetop grease) for the fire Facts: - House fire killed mothe

Torts Negligence Outline

justinkerner — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:56:49 GMT

shared by: justinkerner on: Monday, November 23, 2009

This is my outline for the "negligence" section of my 1L torts class (from fall 2007 and spring 2008).

BusOrg Outline (Dobbyn)

justinkerner — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:50:13 GMT

shared by: justinkerner on: Monday, November 23, 2009

This is part my outline for John Dobbyn's "Business Organizations" (aka Corporations) class at Villanova, from Spring 2009.

CrimPro Outline

justinkerner — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:41:38 GMT

shared by: justinkerner on: Monday, November 23, 2009

This is a graphical / textual outline for John Dobbyn's Criminal Procedure class at the Villanova University School of Law, from when I took the class in 2007.

CivPro II Outline

justinkerner — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:37:57 GMT

shared by: justinkerner on: Monday, November 23, 2009

This is part 2 of my outline for John Cannon's civil procedure class at Villanova.

CivPro I Outline

justinkerner — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:34:58 GMT

shared by: justinkerner on: Monday, November 23, 2009

This is part 1 of my outline for John Cannon's civil procedure class at Villanova.

Vitex Manufacturing Corp v Carbitex Corp

vandywolfer — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:33:39 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Sunday, November 22, 2009

Vitex Manufacturing Corp. v. Carbitex Corp. 1967Remedies > Expectation Interest > Fixed Costs Contracts – pg609 – 11/23/09Parties: Π – Fabric Treater ∆ - Exporter Procedural History: - Judgment against ∆ for $21,114 w/o a jury o Question raised as to whether not including overhead in the profit calculation was an error (unspent costs would re

Laredo Hides Co Inc v H and H Meat Products Co Inc

vandywolfer — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:33:38 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Sunday, November 22, 2009

Laredo Hides Co., Inc. v. H & H Meat Products Co., Inc. 1974Remedies > Expectation Interest > Fixed Costs Contracts – pg613 – 11/23/09Parties: Π – Buyer ∆ - Seller Procedural History: - “Take nothing” judgment in favor of ∆ was rendered Facts: - A K for cattle hides over several months was breached after: o Π had payment delayed o ∆ demanded

Admiralty Law

anie3579 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:10:57 GMT

shared by: anie3579 on: Sunday, November 22, 2009

Suits that can be filed: Yazoo v Orion: 1) failure to provide a seaworthy vessel -did not exercise due diligence -according to fitness test from the silvia, it was not prepared to complete the voyage at hand. -men conducting repairs are agents of the owners, responsible for their actions/failure to provide adequate service *removal of firehose and

7 The Negotiable Instruments Act

ronak1078 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:21:31 GMT

shared by: ronak1078 on: Sunday, November 22, 2009

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Act extends to the whole of India. It regulates commercial transactions, monetary dealings and deals with promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques. The latest amendment to the Act was made in 2002. DEFINITION OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Negotiable instrument is a

6 Sale of Goods Act 1930

ronak1078 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:21:23 GMT

shared by: ronak1078 on: Sunday, November 22, 2009

Sale of Goods Act 1930Sale of Goods Act 1930 Sale of Goods Act is one of very old mercantile law. Sale of Goods is one of the special types of Contract. Initially, this was part of Indian Contract Act. Later these sections in Contract Act were deleted, and separate Sale of Goods Act was passed in 1930.Sec 4. Sale and agreement to sell.-(1

5 LAW OF TORTS

ronak1078 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:21:16 GMT

shared by: ronak1078 on: Sunday, November 22, 2009

LAW OF TORTSLaw of Torts Tort law is the name given to a body of law that creates, and provides remedies for, civil wrongs that do not arise out of contractual duties. A person who is legally injured may be able to use tort law to recover damages from someone who is legally responsible, or "liable," for those injuries. Generally speaking, tort la

4 Consumer Protection Act

ronak1078 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:21:11 GMT

shared by: ronak1078 on: Sunday, November 22, 2009

Consumer Protection Act, 1986Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Need for Consumer Protection Meaning of Consumer Different redressal Forums for Consumers, Rights of Consumers, Unfair Trade Practices, and Procedure for Filing ComplaintsEXTENT AND COVERAGE OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT -The Act applies to all goods and services unless specifically exem

3 Special Contracts

ronak1078 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:21:06 GMT

shared by: ronak1078 on: Sunday, November 22, 2009

Special ContractsBasic Elements of Law Relating to Agency, Guarantee and PledgeContract of indemnity Sec124 A contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a „contract of indemnity‟. Illustration - A contracts to indemnify

2 indian contract

ronak1078 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:20:59 GMT

shared by: ronak1078 on: Sunday, November 22, 2009

MODULE- 2 Indian Contract Act, 1872The Indian Contract Act extends to the whole of India (except the State of Jammu and Kashmir) and it came into force on the first day of September 1872 WHAT IS A CONTRACT? Section 2(h)-An agreement enforceable by law is a contract. Thus for the formation of a contract there must be •an agreement •the agreement s

Price v CTB Inc

vandywolfer — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:22:53 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Saturday, November 21, 2009

Price v. CTOB, Inc. 2001Joinder > Impleader > FRCP 14 CivPro – pg755 – 11/23/09Parties: Π – Consumer ∆ - Seller 3rd Party Complaint – Nail Manufacturer Procedural History: - Trial court determining whether to grant 3rd Party’s motion to dismiss Facts: - π suing over quality of workmanship for a new chicken house - ∆ filing 3rd party complaint

Mosley v General Motors Corp

vandywolfer — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:07:36 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Saturday, November 21, 2009

Mosley v. General Motors Corp. 1974Joinder > Parties > FRCP 20 CivPro – pg749 – 11/23/09Parties: Π – Employees ∆ - Employers Procedural History: - Judge at trial court severed into 10 separate causes of action - Interlocutory appeal allowed Facts: - 10 different minorities (African Americans and Women) filed various discrimination grievances

Gender Based Violance

friendlyboy13 — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:59:51 GMT

shared by: friendlyboy13 on: Saturday, November 21, 2009

Consortium of Irish Human Rights, Humanitarian and Development Agencies & Development Cooperation IrelandGender Based Violence StudyConsultants: Mary Jennings Sherry McLean July 20051TABLE OF CONTENTSExecutive Summary Guidance Note for Management Section 1. Introduction Section 2. Key Concepts2.1. GBV: What is it? 2.2. Human ri

Ira S Bushey and Sons v United States

vandywolfer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:06:35 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 19, 2009

Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States 1968Vicarious Liability Torts – pg429 – 11/20/09Parties: Π – Boat Owner ∆ - Employer of negligent party Procedural History: - π wins in NY Dist Ct Facts: - Drunk sailor opened valves that flooded the tanks of one side of a drydock - Knocked ship over and sunk part of the drydock Legal Issue: Should

Plant v Blazer Financial Services

vandywolfer — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:50:50 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 19, 2009

Plant v. Blazer Financial Services 1979Joinder of Claims CivPro – pg741 – 11/19/09Parties: Π – Customer ∆ - Lender Procedural History: - Ruling for π for $944.76 and $700 attorneys fees for inadequate disclosure under the truth-in-lending act - The trial court offset the π‟s award w/ the counterclaim by Facts: - π borrowed $2520 from ∆ to be

Indiana Harbor Belt RR v American Cyanamid Co

vandywolfer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:34:25 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. v. American Cyanamid Co.Strict Liability > Ultrahazardous or Abnormally Dangerous Activities Torts – pg667 – 11/19/09Parties: Π – RR Yard Operator ∆ - Diversified Chemical Manufacturer Procedural History: - π won on 529 via summary judgment Facts: - ∆ leased railcar and filled w/ 20K gallons of a highly toxic chemica

Spano v Perini Corp

vandywolfer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:31:51 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Spano v. Perini Corp. 1969Strict Liability > Ultrahazardous or Abnormally Dangerous Activities Torts – pg656 – 11/19/09Parties: Π – Garage Owner ∆ - Blaster Procedural History: - Trial court found for π w/o jury for $4400 (& $329 for car owner in garage) - Appellate court overturned Facts: - ∆ engaged in blasting for a tunnel pursuant to a K

CL Maddox Inc v Coalfield Services Inc

vandywolfer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:34:54 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 16, 2009

C.L. Maddox, Inc. v. Coalfield Services, Inc. 1995Termination > Anticipatory Repudiation Contracts – pg780 – 11/18/09Parties: Π – Contractor ∆ - Subcontractor Procedural History: - Magistrate judge heard trial and ruled for ∆ - ∆ counterclaimed for value of completed work Facts: - π hired ∆ to demolish and replace a loading facility in a mine

McCloskey and Co. v Minweld Steel Co

vandywolfer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:18:13 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 16, 2009

McCloskey & Co. v. Minweld Steel Co. 1955Termination > Anticipatory Repudiation > Contracts – pg776 – 11/18/09Parties: Π – Contractor ∆ - Subcontractor Procedural History: - ∆ motion for judgment granted Facts: Legal Issue: Holding: Reasoning: Disposition: Dissent/Concurrence:

Kanavos v Hancock Bank and Trust Co

vandywolfer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:50:29 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 16, 2009

Kanavos v. Hancock Bank & Trust Co. 1985Termination > Anticipatory Repudiation > Contracts – pg771 – 11/18/09Parties: Π – ∆ Procedural History: Facts: Legal Issue: Holding: Reasoning: Disposition: Dissent/Concurrence:

Hochster v De La Tour

vandywolfer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:24:04 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 16, 2009

Hochster v. De La Tour 1853Termination > Anticipatory Repudiation Contracts – pg748 – 11/18/09Parties: Π – Courier ∆ - Lord Procedural History: - Jury found for π Facts: - π contracted with ∆ to be courier and travel months - ∆ changed his mind and declined his services date - π claimed to be willing and able to commence - π did find other, s

Walker and Co v Harrison

vandywolfer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:55:08 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 16, 2009

Walker & Co. v. Harrison 1957Termination Contracts – pg748 – 11/18/09Parties: Π – Sign makers ∆ - Dry Cleaning Owners Procedural History: - Trial court w/o jury for π Facts: - Parties created a K for a sign at ∆’s property - Π was to maintain the sign and ∆ was to pay $148.50 per month - Soon after installation a tomato hit the sign, also rus

Gill v Johnstown Lumber Co

vandywolfer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:23:42 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 16, 2009

Gill v. Johnstown Lumber Co. 1892Divisibility Contracts – pg733 – 11/7/09Parties: Π – ∆ Procedural History: - Trial court directed a vedict for the ∆, stating π defaulted on K when a flood carried a considerable proportion of the logs past ∆’s boom Facts: - π agreed to drive some four million feet of logs [?] Legal Issue: Should π be paid not

Gehrts v Batteen

vandywolfer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:41:32 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 16, 2009

Gehrts v. Batteen 2001Strict Liability > Domesticated Animals Torts – pg645 – 11/18/09Parties: Π – Face Bitten ∆ - St. Bernard Owner Procedural History: - Summary judgment for ∆ Facts: - 8 month old St. Bernard was secured in the back of a pick up by a harness - 14 yr old girl (π) requested to pet the dog when ∆ was stopping by to pick up a w

Plante v Jacobs

vandywolfer — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:36:14 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 16, 2009

Plante v. Jacobs 1960Substantial Performance Contracts – pg728 – 11/17/09Parties: Π – Builder ∆ - Homeowner Procedural History: - Trial court assessed defects to lower recovery by π Facts: - π made a number of errors in constructing ∆ home o Misplaced a wall by one foot Legal Issue: Should a contractor be forced to pay for the cost of replace

Jacob and Youngs v Kent

vandywolfer — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:54:51 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Jacob & Youngs v. Kent 1921Limitations on Damages > Defect Contracts – pg645 – 11/17/09Parties: Π – Contractor ∆ - Homeowner Procedural History: - Verdict directed for ∆ at trial court - Reversed at appeals court Facts: - π installed pipes for $77K at country residence o Used pipes identical to those specified in contract, but wrong brand - π

Erie Railroad v Tompkins

vandywolfer — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:50:27 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 1938Subject Matter Jurisdiction > Choice of Laws CivPro – pg225 – 11/17/09Parties: Π – Injured ∆ - RR Procedural History: - Tompkins won verdict of $30K by applying federal law that allowed recovery for negligence (Pennsylvania law only allowed for wanton negligence recovery) - Upheld by Cardozo, but the judgment was

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:14 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.11 Expectation Damages, Non-recoverable damages- p.866 – 4/17/2007 Zapata Hermanos Sucesores v. Hearthside Baking Co. N.D. Ill. 2001 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Zapata, a Mexican company, sold tins to Lenell (Hearthside). Lenell fell behind in its payments, and threated Zapata that if they stopped shipping tins, they would never receive payment. Za

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:12 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

No description

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:12 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.11 Expectation Damages – p. 831 – Forseeability – 4/12/2007 Hadley v. Baxendale Court of Exchequer, 1854 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Plaintiff is a miller. A crankshaft in his mill broke, causing the mill to shut down. He gave the shaft to a carrier and paid him 2l. The carrier was delayed (negligence) and the mill remained shut down for an additio

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:11 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.11 Expectation Damages – Nonrecoverable Damages – NIED – p. 874 4/19/2007 Erlich (homeowner) v Menezes (contractor) Supreme Court of California, 1999 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Menezes built a house, which flooded during rain, and was plagued by many, many serious problems. The house was supposed to be a dream home. Erlich allegedly manifested a h

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:10 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.11 Expectation Damages – p. 824 – 4/12/2007 American Standard v. Schectman New York Supreme Court, 1981 Facts: Plaintiff conveyed land and equipment to defendant for $275K. Defendant was to remove equipment, demolish structures, and grade property. Under the agreement, he was to remove foundations to one foot below the grade line. D did not do s

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:10 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.11 Expectation Damages – Mitigation of Damages – p.851 – 4/17/2007 Boehm v. ABC (9th Cir. 1991) Facts: Evidentiary Facts ABC admits to wrongfully terminating Boehm. He sues for wrongful termination. ABC’s sole defense is that it offered Boehm an equal paying position, which he failed to persue. Boehm asserts that the job was not real, it did not

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:09 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch. 10 Consequences of non-performance p. 755 – 3/9/2007 Sackett v Spindler CA District Court of Appeal, 1967 248 Cal. App. 2d 220 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Plaintiff Sackett agreed to purchase shares of stock from Defendant Spindler for $85,000 under a payment plan. Sackett continually delayed payment, defaults and was granted a number of extension

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:09 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.10 Consequences of Non-Performance – Anticipatory Repudiation – p.763 – 3/13/07 Thomas Flatt & Sons Co. v. Schupf Appellate Court of IL, 1995 271 Ill. App.3d 983 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Flatt (buyer) entered into a contract to purchase a tract of land from Schupf (seller) for $160K, set to close on June 30th. The contract was contingent upon Bu

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:08 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.10 Consequences of Nonperformance – Express Conditions – p.799 Morin Building Products (Sub K’r) v. Baystone Construction (Gen K’r) US Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., 1983 717 F.2d 413 Facts: Evidentiary Facts GMC hired Gen K’r to expand one of its factories. Sub K’r was hired to put up aluminum mill finish to match the finish and texture of the exi

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:08 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.10 Consequences of nonperformance – Express conditions – 3/15/2007Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co. New York Court of Appeals, 1995 86 NY2d 685 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Plaintiff is a lessee who is seeking to move to a different building upon being induced by another company that promised to indemnify them for breaking their le

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:07 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.10 Consequences of Nonperformance – Express Conditions – p.791JNA Realty Corp. v. Cross Bay Chelsea, Inc. New York Court of Appeals, 1977 42 N.Y.2d 392 Facts: Evidentiary Facts A building was leased to a tenant, who used the building as a restaurant. The lease provided for a 6 year term, with an option to renew for an additional 10 years provi

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:06 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.8 Justification for Nonperformance – Mistake – p.643 – 2/27/07Wil-Fred’s Inc. v. Metropolitan Sanitary District Illinois Appellate Court, 1978 57 Ill. App. 3d 16 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Wil-Fred is a general contractor. He submitted a bid to the Metro Sanitary District, along with a certified check for $100K. After bids were opened, Wil-Fred’

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:06 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch 10 Consequences of Nonperformance p.745 + Handout - Material Breach – 3/8/2007 Jacob and Youngs v. Kent Court of Appeals of NY, 1921 230 NY 239 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Jacob and Youngs [P] built a house for Kent. In the contract, the specified type of pipe to be used was “Reading.” P used about 3/5 pipe from other manufacturers. When this was c

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:05 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch. Mel Frank Tool & Supply v. Di-Chem Supreme Court of Iowa, 1998 580 N.W.2d 802 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Di-Chem was storing hazardous chemicals and food additives in a building leased from Mel Frank. Subsequent to taking possession, the city passed an ordinance prohibiting hazardous chemicals to be stored without certain precautions such as drai

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:05 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.8 Justification for Nonperformance – Changed Circumstances, Impracticability, and Frustration – p.655 - 3/1/07Wendt Farm Equipment v. International Harvester (IH) US Court of Appeals, 6th, 1991 931 F.2d 1112 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Wendt is the dealer of IH goods in Marlette, Michigan. IH, sustaining losses of $2B over 4 years, sold its divis

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:04 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch. 8 Justification for Nonperformance – Modification – p.681 3/6/2007 Alaska Packer’s Assn. v. Domenico US Court of Appeals, 9th Cir. 1902 117 F. 99 Facts: Evidentiary Facts A corporation who owned an Alaska fish cannery hired a group of fishermen. The employment contract called for payment of $50-60 for the fishing season, plus 2 cents per fish c

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:04 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.8 Justification for Nonperformance – p.634 – Mistake – 2/23/07 Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly Michigan Supreme Court, 1982 417 Mich. 17 Facts: Evidentiary Facts The Pickleses purchased from the Messerlys a 3 unit apartment complex on 600 sq. feet of land. After inspection of the property, the Pickleses went into possession of the pro

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:03 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.6 Supplementing the Agreement – Rationale for Implied Terms – p.455 2/6/2007 Empire Gas v. American Bakeries US Court of Appeals, 7 th (1988) 840 P.2d 133 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Empire is a propane distributor. American Bakeries sought to convert it’s fleet of 3,000 vehicles to propane from gasoline. A contract was executed for 3,000 conversio

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:03 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.6 Supplementing the Agreement – Rationale for Implied Terms – p.432 2/6/2007 Wood v Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon New York Court of Appeals, 1917 22 N.Y. 88 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Defendant “creator of fashions” agreed to grant plaintiff exclusive rights to her endorsement. In return, plaintiff agreed to give defendant of the profits from using her

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:02 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.5 The Meaning of the Agreement – p. 384 – Parol Evidence Rule Thompson v Libby Minnesota Supreme Court, 1885 34 Minn. 374 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Thompson is the owner of logs. Libby is the buyer of logs. A written contract was made, providing the terms of the sale. Libby took the logs and did not pay for them. Procedural Facts Libby asserts, a

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:02 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.6 Supplementing the Agreement – Warranties – p.485 – 2/8/2007 Bayliner Marine Corp. v. Crow Supreme Court of Virginia, 1999 257 Va. 121 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Crow purchased a sport fishing boat from Tidewater Yacht Agency. When testing the boat, Crow asked the rep what its maximum speed was. The rep deferred to the “prop matrix,” which gave s

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:01 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.5 The Meaning of the Agreement – Principles of Interpretation p.352 – 1-23-07 Joyner v Adams North Carolina Court of Appeals, 1987 87 N.C. App. 570 Facts: Evidentiary Facts A land developer (Adams) entered into an agreement with a property owner (Joyner). The agreement stated that the developer would pay a lower amount of money under the stipula

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:01 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.5 The Meaning of the Agreement – The Parol Evidence Rule – p. 392 – 2/1/2007 Taylor v State Farm Supreme Court of Arizona, 1993 175 Ariz. 148 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Taylor was covered by State Farm when he got into an accident. State Farm did not settle with the other parties. The other two people involved in the accident won a judgment agains

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:00 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.5 The Meaning of the Agreement – Principles of Interpretation (Reasonable Expectations Doctrine) - p.369 C & J Fertilizer v Allied Insurance Supreme Court of Iowa, 1975 227 N.W.2d 169 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Plaintiff operates a fertilizer plant. An insurance policy was purchased to cover burglaries from defendant, with knowledge that the polic

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:58:00 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.5 The Meaning of the Agreement – Principles of Interpretation p.361 1/25/07 Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Intn’l Sales Corp S.D.N.Y., 1960 190 F. Supp. 116 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Plaintiff is a poultry distributor in Switzerland, defendant is a wholesaler in New York. The parties formed 2 contracts, on separate occasions for two types of

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:57:59 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.4 The Statute of Frauds, General Principles: Scope & Application p. 299 1-18-07 Crabtree v Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. New York Court of Appeals, 1953 305 NY 48 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Crabtree was offered employment by Ms. Elizabeth Arden. She had her assistant right out a memorandum entitled “employment agreement” stating that his starting sa

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:57:59 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.4 The SoF – General Principles: Scope & Application p.305 1/18 – 1/19Winternitz v Summit Hills Joint Venture Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1987 73 Md. App. 16 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Winternitz operated a pharmacy in the Summit Hills Shopping center. Near the expiration of his lease, he met with an agent of the landlord, Mr. Frank to

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:57:58 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.12 Alternatives to Expectation Damages – Reliance – p.925 – 4/20 Wartzman v. Hightower Productions Court of Special Appeals, MD, 1983 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Hightower Productions hired “Woody Hightower” to break the world record for flagpole sitting as a promotional stunt. The company needed to raise $250K to finance the project. This would be

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:57:58 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.4 Statute of Frauds – The Sale of Goods SoF: UCC 2-201 p. 326 1/23 Buffaloe v Hart North Carolina Court of Appeals, 1994 114 N.C. App. 52 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Buffaloe agreed to rent tobacco barns. Defendants were to own the barns, and retain insurance on them. Buffaloe then offered to purchase the barns for $20K, over 4 years. Defendants o

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:57:57 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.12 Alternatives to Expectation Damages – Reliance interest - p.946 Lancellotti (buyer) v. Thomas (seller) Superior Court of PA, 1985 Facts: Evidentiary Facts Buyers agreed to purchase a business name, goodwill, and equipment on July 25, 1973. They rented the real estate and the inventory. Buyers agreed to build a separate building, which would b

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:57:57 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.12 Alternatives to Expectation Damages – Restitution Damages – p.942 – 4/20 United States ex rel. Coastal Steel Erectors v. Algernon Blair, Inc. (4th Cir. 1973) Facts: Evidentiary Facts A subcontractor (surety = US) justifiably ceased work because of a refusal of a general contractor to pay for crane work. However, if the subcontractor had compl

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:57:56 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.12 Alternatives to Expectation Damages – Specific Performance – p. 978 – 4/26 Amercian Broadcasting Co. v. Wolf (NY 1981) Facts: Evidentiary Facts Wolf was a sports caster for ABC. He entered into an employment contract which bound him to negotiate in good faith with ABC for the 90 days prior to the expiration of his contract. The first 45 days

Briefs from 1L contracts class

kzigler — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:57:56 GMT

shared by: kzigler on: Sunday, November 15, 2009

Ch.12 Alternatives to Expectation Damages – p.967 – 4/24/07 City Stores v. Ammerman D.C. Cir 1968 Facts: Evidentiary Facts City Stores Co. sought to move into a new shopping plaza being built by the defendant. Defendant looked as if they were not going to get the necessary permits, so P wrote a letter expressing its intention to move into the plaza

Krell v Henry

vandywolfer — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:54:56 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Friday, November 13, 2009

Krell v. Henry 1903Frustration of Purpose Contracts – pg854 – 11/16/09Parties: Π – Apartment Owner ∆ - Event Renter Procedural History: - English Case Facts: - K created to view coronation of Edward VII from π’s property along Pall Mall - Cancelled b/c of King’s sickness - K mention coronation Legal Issue: Should a contract to let a room be

Chase Precast Corp v John J Paonessa

vandywolfer — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:54:55 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Friday, November 13, 2009

Chase Precast Corp. v. John J. Paonessaa Co. 1991Frustration of Purpose Contracts – pg861 – 11/16/09Parties: Π – Concrete Median Supplier ∆ - Highway Construction Contractor Procedural History: - Judge found for ∆ on the basis of impossibility o Jury trial waived - Appellate court affirmed, but found frustration of purpose a more accurate des

Summers v Tice

vandywolfer — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:54:49 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Friday, November 13, 2009

Summers v. Tice 1948Multiple Causes Torts – pg485 – 11/12/09Parties: Π – Injured ∆ - Two Shooters Procedural History: - π victor in 2 separate (now merged) suits Facts: - π took both ∆s hunting, instructing them to exercise care and “keep in line” - π got ahead of ∆s and was shot in face and lip with bird shot after both ∆s fired at quails 10

Skipworth v Lead Industries Association

vandywolfer — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:54:48 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Friday, November 13, 2009

Skipworth v. Lead Industries Association 1997Multiple Causes > Market Share Liability Torts – pg485 – 11/12/09Parties: Π – Boy hospitalized for lead poisoning ∆ - “All” manufacturers of lead based paints Procedural History: - Summary judgment for ∆ Facts: - π hospitalized for lead poisoning - Home contained lead paint o Manufacturer be iden

McDermott Inc v AmClyde and River Don Castings Ltd

vandywolfer — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:54:47 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Friday, November 13, 2009

McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde and River Don Castings, Ltd. 1994Multiple Defendants > Joint and Several Liability Torts – pg420 – 11/13/09Parties: Π – Construction Owner ∆ - Contractors Procedural History: Facts: - A construction accident in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in several ∆s, 3 of which settled for $1 Mil - Non-settling parties found by j

Redner v Sanders

vandywolfer — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:46:34 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Friday, November 13, 2009

Redner v. Sanders 2000Subject Matter Jurisdiction > Diversity CivPro – pg190 – 11/12/09Parties: Π – Living in France ∆ - NY Citizens Procedural History: - ∆ moving to dismiss under FRCP 12b1 Facts: - Complaint alleges π resides in France - Π not a citizen of France, but possibly of California Legal Issue: Is having a “residence” in a foreign

Hawkins v Masters Farms Inc

vandywolfer — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:46:33 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Friday, November 13, 2009

Hawkins v. Masters Farms, Inc. 2003Subject Matter Jurisdiction > Diversity CivPro – pg6 – 11/12/09Parties: Π – Car Driver ∆ - Tractor Driver Procedural History: - This is the trial court hearing Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 12b(1) Facts: - Accident where π died involving a tractor and car in Troy, Kansas - Π had recently moved from Missouri t

Sete Mares

Precursor — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:05:43 GMT

shared by: Precursor on: Thursday, November 12, 2009

Trabalho da escola sobre os Sete Mares , cirado por Edward

Transatlantic Financing Corporation v United States

vandywolfer — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:13:46 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Transatlantic Financing Corporation v. United States 1966Impracticability Contracts – pg830 – 11/11/09Parties: Π – Shipping Co ∆ - Govt Procedural History: - District court dismissed claim Facts: - K to ship wheat from Texas to Iran was diverted around Cape Hope when the Egyptian govt seized the Suez Canal - Π seeks payment for cost of the ad

Taylor v Caldwell

vandywolfer — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:57:37 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Taylor v. Caldwell 1863Impracticability Contracts – pg825 – 11/11/09Parties: Π – Performers ∆ - Hall owners Procedural History: - Verdict for π Facts: - Parties contracted to “let” music hall for 100 lbs a day, which burned down before the contracted engagement - Fire not mentioned in K - Neither party at fault in the fire Legal Issue: Should

Kingston v Chicago and NW Ry

vandywolfer — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:32:44 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Kingston v. Chicago 1927Cause Torts – pg477 – 11/11/09Parties: Π – Fire victim/ property burnt ∆ - RR w/ sparks Procedural History: - Jury decided for π Facts: - Sparks from ∆ RR caused a fire that was a proximate cause of destruction to π’s property - Another fire from the northwest, its cause unidentified, would also be a proximate cause o

Louisville and Nashville Railroad v Mottley

vandywolfer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:56:33 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 09, 2009

Louisville & Nashville Railraod v. Mottley 1908Subject Matter Jurisdiction > Federal Questions CivPro – pg179 – 11/10/09Parties: Π – Free pass holders ∆ - RR Procedural History: - π won specific performance in federal district court Facts: - π were injured in a RR accident and settled w/ RR for lifetime passes - Congress made free passes unla

Renner v Kehl

vandywolfer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:29:11 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 09, 2009

Renner v. Kehl 1986Mutual Mistake Contracts – pg808 – 11/10/09Parties: Π – Purchasers ∆ - Sellers Procedural History: - Trial court directed sellers to reimburse buyers $309,849.84 - Court of appeals affirmed Facts: - ∆ sought to sell undeveloped land - π agreed to buy under the understanding that there would be enough water to grow jojoba -

Stees v Leonard

vandywolfer — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:04:21 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Monday, November 09, 2009

Stees v. Leonard 1874Mutual Mistake Contracts – pg808 – 11/10/09Parties: Π – Owner ∆ - Contractor Procedural History: - Trial court found for π Facts: - 2 attempts at building to contracted specifications failed due to constructing on quicksand Legal Issue: Should a building contract be enforced when an unforeseen complication prevents a part

Li v Yellow Cab Co of California

vandywolfer — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:50:54 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Sunday, November 08, 2009

Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California 1975Comparative negligence Torts – pg384 – 11/9/09Parties: Π – Driver crossing 3 lanes of traffic ∆ - Driver speeding through yellow light Procedural History: - ∆ won on contributory negligence at trial court Facts: - A car accident occurred where both drivers were negligent (see parties) Legal Issue: Should

Piper Aircraft v Reyno

vandywolfer — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:42:41 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Saturday, November 07, 2009

Piper Aircraft v. Reyno 1981Venue > Forum non conveniens Contracts – pg164 – 11/9/09Parties: Π – Representative for Plane Crash Victims ∆ - Aircraft & Equipment Manufacturers Procedural History: - Sued in California - ∆’s removed to Federal court & requested transfer to Middle District of Pennsylvania (where they one did business) under 1404

Dalury v S-K-I Ltd

vandywolfer — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:20:07 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Friday, November 06, 2009

Dalury v. S-K-I Ltd. 1995Assumption of the Risk > Exculpatory Clause Torts – pg374 – 11/5/09Parties: Π – Injured Skier ∆ - Ski Resort Procedural History: - Summary judgment for ∆ Facts: - π injured when collided with a metal pole (part of lift control maze) while skiing - Allege negligent design, construction and replacement of the pole Legal

Lamson v American Axe and Tool Co

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:56:46 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Lamson v. American Axe & Tool Co. 1900Assumption of the Risk Torts – pg360 – 11/5/09Parties: Π – Employee ∆ - Employer Procedural History: - Directed jury for ∆ Facts: - π reported that a new axe rack was more dangerous than the previous in that axes (when paint was drying) fell frequently when jostled by machinery - ∆ told him to use the rac

Murphy v Steeplechase Amusement Co

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:55:31 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co. 1929Assumption of the Risk Torts – pg365 – 11/5/09Parties: Π – Park Guest ∆ - Amusement Park Operator Procedural History: - Judgment for π Facts: - “The Flopper” ride was a padded escalator that moved more quickly and was designed to knock over its guests - π broke kneecap on the ride Legal Issue: Should a

Pacific Gas and Electric Co v GW Thomas Drayage and Rigging Co

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:07 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. 1968Extrinsic Evidence of Intent > California Rule Contracts – pg382 – 11/2/09Parties: Π – Steam Turbine Owner ∆ - Repair Company Procedural History: - Judgment for π for $25,144.51 - Negligence count dismissed Facts: - ∆ contracted to repair upper metal cover of π’s steam turbin

Gianni v R Russel and Co

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:03 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Gianni v. R. Russell & Co. 1924Determining Obligations > Parol Evidence Rule Contracts – pg368 – 10/28/09Parties: Π – Lessee ∆ - Lessor Procedural History: - π had prevailed in trial court Facts: - Renegotiation of lease for small store with new building owner forbid selling tobacco - Π claims oral agreement to get exclusive right to sell oth

Frigalment Importing Co v BNS International Sales Corp

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:02 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Frigalment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. 1960Content & Meaning of K > Interpretation > Express Terms Contracts – pg401 – 10/26/09Parties: Π – Buyer ∆ - Chicken supplier Procedural History: - District court‟s first hearing Facts: - Parties had 2 Ks for “chicken” o Language – “US Fresh Frozen Chicken” o 2.5-3 & 1.5-2 lbs nd

Tarasoff v Regents of University of California

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:47:09 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California 1976Duty > Affirmative Duties > Special Relationships > Psychologist Torts – pg634 – 10/30/09Parties: Π – Family of Murdered girl ∆ - University employing psychologist Procedural History: - Demurrer granted, then appealed Facts: - Patient of ∆ psychologist threatens to and then murders a female

Rowland v Christian

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:47:07 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Rowland v. Christian 1968Duty > Affirmative Duty > Owners & Occupiers Torts – pg593 – 10/29/09Parties: Π – Injured guest ∆ - Apartment host Procedural History: - Trial ct granted demurrer b/c CA had not yet adopted the standard that social guests should receive warning of latent defects - ∆ moved for summary judgment granted, stating: o π was

Palsgraf v Long Island RR

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:47:05 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Palsgraf v Long Island R.R. 1928Duty & Proximate Cause Torts – pg519 – 10/27/09Parties: Π – Injured ∆ - RR Co Procedural History: - Trial ct jury finds for π & affirmed by appellate court Facts: - A man carrying a package runs to catch a moving train - ∆ RR employees attempt to help him aboard and his package falls to the rails - The package

Montgomery v National Convoy and Trucking Co

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:47:03 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Montgomery v. National Convoy & Trucking Co. 1937Duty > To Rescue Torts – pg579 – 10/28/09Parties: Π – Injured ∆ - Truckers blocking road Procedural History: - Motion for directed verdict by ∆ was denied - Jury awarded π full amount of $3K Facts: - Trucks stalled on icy highway at bottom of hill ( negligently) - But out some flairs but not a

Hurley v Eddingfield

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:47:01 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Hurley v. Eddingfield 1901Affirmative Duties > Rescue Torts – pg568 – 10/28/09Parties: Π – Family of child that died ∆ - Doctor Procedural History: - π sues for $10K - Trial court demurrer granted, appealed Facts: - Physician declines to help a patient whom no other doctor could get to in time o Π dies Legal Issue: Should a doctor be compelle

Erie Railroad Co v Stewart

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:46:59 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Erie Railroad Co. (∆) v. Stewart(π) 1930Duty > Affirmative Duties > Gratuitous Undertakings Torts – pg609 – 10/29/09Parties: Π – Injured auto passenger ∆ - Train operator Procedural History: - π won judgment Facts: - π hit by train in car when a posted watchman did not provide notice of oncoming train o Watchman inside or not out in time o Π

Derheim v N Fiorito Co

vandywolfer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:46:57 GMT

shared by: vandywolfer on: Thursday, November 05, 2009

Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co. 1972Contributory negligence > Seatbelt Rule Torts – pg345 – 11/5/09Parties: Π – Driver, No Seatbelt ∆ - Driver, caused accident Procedural History: - Verdict for π Facts: - Car accident where π wasn’t wearing his seat belt Legal Issue: Should failing to wear a seatbelt be available as grounds for contributory neglige