Monday, September 30, 2019
Contract and Additional Work
Gary Porter Construction v. Fox Construction, Inc. , 2004 Ut. App. 354, 101 p. 3d 371 (2004). Facts: The University of Utah was in need of a womenÃ¢â¬â¢s Gymnastics training facility so they subcontracted Fox Construction, Inc. to complete the project. For the soil and ground work Fox Construction, Inc. subcontracted with Gary Porter Construction. Gary Porter Construction, Inc. performed their work based on specific plans as well as some work outside of the plans. The combined total from the planned project was $146,740.The additional work completed at FoxÃ¢â¬â¢s request cost Gary Porter construction additional costs and Fox refused to pay for the additional work done outside the subcontract. Procedure: A suit was filed by Gary Porter in the Utah State Court against Fox with alleging breech of an implied-in-fact contract. The court granted summary judgment for Porter, which Fox later appealed to a state intermediate court. Issue: If sections of a contract are left out by mistake, is the contract still valid and enforceable? Were all the requirements of an implied-in-fact contract met?Holding: Yes Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the lower courts summary judgment in favor of Porter. Fox knew that the additional work that Porter did would be followed up with an additional charge. Fox should have known that there would have been additional costs for the work outside of the planned procedure. Porter completed the work only after FoxÃ¢â¬â¢s manager requested it and it was implied to be additional from the start. The additional work not planned in the subcontract was valued at $161,309. 08 as well as the $135,441. 62 contacted value.The issue of the sections being mistakenly not represented in the contract is voided because Fox did not inform Porter about what all needed to be included. Decision and Remedy: Gary Porter Construction won against Fox Construction, Inc. Fox was ordered to pay Porter the balance of $161,309. 08 for the work done but was exclu ded in the original contract. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. supp. 2d 602 (2005). Facts: In 1987 Jamil Blackmon met a promising high school basketball star, Allen Iverson. Blackmon supported Allen Iverson financially and provided other forms of support for his family as well, realizing his athletic potential.In 1994 Jamil Blackmon proposed a new nickname for the basketball star Ã¢â¬Å"The AnswerÃ¢â¬ . The nickname would represent Mr. Iverson with clothing, sports apparel, and basketball shoes. Mr. Blackmon presented the idea to Allen and Allen agreed to give Blackmon 25 percent of profits from the nickname. Iverson was later drafted by the Philadelphia 76ers. After many months, Iverson entered a contract with Reebok, a shoe company, to manufacture, market, and sell a line of sportswear using the same nickname, Ã¢â¬Å"The AnswerÃ¢â¬ . Blackmon moved to Philadelphia at the request of Mr. Iverson and has requested 25 percent of the profits on many occasions.Allen Iverson continues to receive pay from Reebok from the continuing product line. Procedure: Mr. Blackmon filed a suit in Federal District Court against Mr. Iverson for breach of an express contract to which Allen Iverson filed a motion to dismiss. Issue: Is past consideration sufficient to create a binding contract? Is continuous gracious conduct in exchange for a promise a valid consideration? Holding: No Reasoning: The courtÃ¢â¬â¢s reasoning was fully based on past consideration. Mr. Iverson allegedly promised 25 percent of his profits because of three forms of consideration.First, Blackmon provided him with the nickname Ã¢â¬Å"The AnswerÃ¢â¬ . Second, he helped Allen IversonÃ¢â¬â¢s family, and third, he moved to Philadelphia when Iverson was drafted there. Mr. Iverson offered to pay Mr. Blackmon 25 percent long before entering a contract with Reebok. These forms of past consideration make the contract invalid. There were no valid forms of consideration to make a valid express contract between the two men. Decision and Remedy: Allen Iverson won the case. The United States District Court, eastern District of Pennsylvania, granted Allen IversonÃ¢â¬â¢s motion to dismiss.Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc. , 212 So. 2d 906 (Ct. App. Fl. 1986). Facts: Audrey E. Vokes, a widow with no family, had a passion for dancing and wanted to become a successful dancer and find a new interest in life. In 1961 Arthur Murray, Inc. , a franchise that has taught about 20 million people to dance, invited Audrey to a dance party. When she attended her instructors told her about her potential as a successful dancer due to her excellent grace and poise. After being told about her Ã¢â¬Å"goodÃ¢â¬ potential, she bought eight half-hour dances for $14. 50 each to be used in one month.Throughout the next sixteen months she continued to buy these lessons totaling $31,090. 45. Ms. Vokes eventually began to realize that her instructors were only telling her what she wanted to hear and she was not actually goo d at dancing. Procedure: Vokes filed a suit against Arthur Murray, Inc. for fraudulent misrepresentation. After being dismissed in trial court, Vokes appealed her complaint to the District Court of Florida. Issue: If a party possesses expertise, can a statement of opinion be regarded as a statement of fact and be actionable? Holding: Yes.Reasoning: Misrepresentation cannot regard opinions; they must contain facts. If one party has a statement that could be considered an opinion, it could result being a factual statement based on the amount of superior knowledge contained by that party. Using the Ã¢â¬Å"reasonable personÃ¢â¬ method, Vokes would potentially have reason to believe that Arthur Murray Inc. has superior knowledge of her dance potential. When her instructors Revels v. Miss America Organization, __N. C. __, 641 S. E. 2d 721 (2007). Facts: Miss North Carolina Pageant Organization, Inc. (MNCPO) is a franchise of Miss America Organization (MAO).Under contract between these two parties, MNCPO holds a state competition to select a finalist for the national competition ran by MAO. On June 22, 2002, Rebekah Revels was selected to be Mrs. North Carolina. On July19, 2002 an anonymous e-mail said came out stating that Mrs. Revels cohabitated with a male non-relative and that nude photos of her existed. Mrs. Revels came out and confirmed that the photos existed. MAO and MNCPO approached Revels and asked her to resign from her position as Miss North Carolina or else she would be excluded from the national competition.On July 23, 2002 Mrs. Revels ended up resigning from her Miss North Carolina position. Procedure: Revels resulted in filing a suit in the North Carolina state court against MAO, MNCPO, and other organizations for breach of contract. The court issued a summary judgment in MAOÃ¢â¬â¢s favor to which Revels appealed to a state intermediate appellate court. Issue: Must a contract be executed for the direct, and not incidental, benefit of the third pa rty in order to assert rights as a third party beneficiary? Holding: Yes.Reasoning: A person isnÃ¢â¬â¢t the direct beneficiary of a contract if the contract benefits that person but wasnÃ¢â¬â¢t intended to benefit that person. A person is the direct beneficiary of a contract only if the contracting parties intend to confer a legally enforceable benefit directly to that person. Revels was unable to prove that MAOÃ¢â¬â¢s contract was intended to have her be the sole beneficiary because anyone who wins can be the beneficiary under the franchise agreement. The agreement did state that the MAO will accept the MNCPO winner but this does not show that Mrs.Revels was the intended beneficiary of this agreement. Rebekah Revels was an incidental beneficiary of the agreement because she won the pageant and does not have enforceable rights against Miss America Organization based on their agreement with MISS north Carolina Pageant Organization Inc. Decision and Remedy: Based on the agreemen t between the two organizations, Revels was an incidental beneficiary and therefore couldnÃ¢â¬â¢t maintain any actions against them. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower courtÃ¢â¬â¢s decision in favor of MAO.