Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
22 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Dodson by Dodson v. Shrader
824 S.W.2d 545 Tenn.,1992. January 27, 1992 (Minority) |
Minor purchaser of pickup truck filed an action to disaffirm the contract and for a refund of the purchase price. The Maury County Circuit Court, William B. Cain, Circuit Judge, granted rescission, and vendors appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court, O'Brien, J., held that: (1) minor could not recover amount actually paid without reasonable compensation to vendor for the use, depreciation and willful or negligent damage to the article while in minor's hands, so long as the contract was fair and reasonable, there was no undue influence or overreaching, and minor had actually paid money on the purchase price and taken and used the article purchased, and (2) question of any overreaching on the part of the seller and the fair market value of the property returned was a question for the trier of fact.
Reversed and remanded |
|
|
Hauer v. Union State Bank of Wautoma
192 Wis.2d 576, 532 N.W.2d 456 Wis.App.,1995. March 15, 1995 (Minority) |
Borrower filed suit against lender to void loan contract, and lender counterclaimed for judgment on defaulted loan. The Circuit Court, Winnebago County, Thomas S. Williams, J., entered judgment voiding contract. On cross-appeals, the Court of Appeals, Snyder, J., held that: (1) jury could find that borrower was incompetent; (2) lender's bad faith permitted borrower to recover collateral without liability for loan proceeds; and (3) borrower could not recover attorney fees.
Affirmed. |
|
|
Totem Marine Tug & Barge, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
584 P.2d 15 Alaska,1978. August 25, 1978 (Duress & Undue Influence) |
Corporation, which contracted to transport pipeline materials for a defendant to a port in state, and two other plaintiffs brought action to rescind agreement, under which corporation released defendant from all claims under the contract in exchange for $97,500, on grounds of economic duress, to recover balance allegedly due on the original contract and to recover damages on theory that defendant wrongfully terminated the contract. The Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Victor D. Carlson, J., granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs appealed. The Supreme Court, Burke, J., held that: (1) trial court's refusal to consider that a plaintiff's deposition, which was referred to frequently by the parties in the memoranda and argument, was error, and refusal to publish deposition so that it could become part of record on appeal was also error, and (2) genuine issues of material fact relating to whether there had been economic duress which would permit avoidance of the release precluded summary judgment for defendants.
Reversed and remanded. |
|
|
Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School Dist.
246 Cal.App.2d 123, 54 Cal.Rptr. 533 Cal.App. 1966. November 03, 1966 (Duress & Undue Influence) |
Action against school district by former school teacher for rescission of his resignation submitted after he had been arrested on criminal charges of homosexual activity which were subsequently dismissed. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County Shirley M. Hufstedler, J., sustained defendant's demurrer, and plaintiff appealed. The District Court of Appeal, Fleming, J., held that teacher's complaint alleging that school officials came to his apartment just after he had completed process of arrest, police questioning, booking and release on bail and had gone 40 hours without sleep and told him that he should resign immediately, that there was no time to consult an attorney, and that if he did not resign immediately he would be suspended and dismissed and that resultant publicity would cause him extreme embarrassment and humiliation stated cause of action for rescission on ground of undue influence.
Reversed. |
|
|
Syester v. Banta
257 Iowa 613, 133 N.W.2d 666 Iowa 1965 March 09, 1965 (Misrepresentation & Non-disclosure) |
Action for fraud and misrepresentations in defendants' sale of dancing lessons to elderly widowed plaintiff who lived alone. The Polk District Court, Wade Clarke, J., gave judgment on verdict awarding actual and exemplary damages to plaintiff, and the defendant appealed. The Supreme Court, Snell, J., held that evidence raised jury questions as to whether there was fraudulent overreaching on part of defendants to obtain releases from plaintiff and as to whether defendants made false representations which induced the sale. The court also held that jury's verdict for $14,300 actual damages was within the evidence, and that evidence of greed and avariciousness on part of defendants warranted jury's verdict for $40,000 punitive damages.
Affirmed. |
|
|
Hill v. Jones
151 Ariz. 81, 725 P.2d 1115 Ariz.App.,1986. March 11, 1986 (Misrepresentation & Non-disclosure) |
Purchasers sued to rescind agreement to purchase residence. The Superior Court, Maricopa County, Cause No. C-486431, Marilyn A. Riddel, J., dismissed misrepresentation claim and granted summary judgment for vendors on “concealment” claim, and awarded attorney fees to vendors. Purchasers appealed and vendors cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals, Meyerson, J., held that: (1) contract integration clause did not warrant dismissal of claim for oral misrepresentation concerning termite damage, and (2) inquiry whether ripple in stair was termite damage imposed duty to disclose.
Reversed and remanded. |
|
|
Park 100 Investors, Inc. v. Kartes
650 N.E.2d 347 Ind.App. 5 Dist.,1995. May 26, 1995 (Misrepresentation & Non-disclosure) |
Lessor appealed finding of the Superior Court, Marion County, Anthony J. Metz, J., that lessee's part-owners were not liable for unpaid rent under personal guaranty of lease. The Court of Appeals, Barteau, J., held that lessor used fraudulent means to procure signatures of part-owners.
Affirmed. |
|
|
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
350 F.2d 445 C.A.D.C. 1965. August 11, 1965 (Unconscionability) |
Suits by furniture company to recover on contracts under which balance due on every item purchased continued until balance due on all items, whenever purchased, was liquidated. The Court of General Sessions granted judgment for furniture company and appeal was taken. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed and appeal was taken. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, J. Skelly Wright, Circuit Judge, held that where element of unconscionability is present at time contract is made, contract should not be enforced and that inasmuch as trial court and appellate court had not recognized that contracts could be unenforceable on that basis and record was not sufficient for Court of Appeals to decide issue as matter of law, cases must be remanded to trial court for further proceedings.
Cases remanded. Danaher, Circuit Judge, dissented. |
|
|
Higgins v. Briggs
876 P.2d 539 Alaska App.,1994. June 24, 1994 (unconscionability) |
Inmate petitioned for writ of habeas corpus. The Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Karen L. Hunt, J., denied petition, and inmate appealed. The Court of Appeals, Mannheimer, J., held that inmate's sole procedural mechanism for challenging Department of Corrections' disciplinary decisions, which resulted in loss of good time credit, was administrative appeal, and he was not entitled to pursue petition for writ of habeas corpus or for postconviction relief.
Affirmed in part and appeal dismissed in part. |
|
|
Adler v. Fred Lind Manor
153 Wash.2d 331, 103 P.3d 773 Wash.,2004. December 23, 2004 (Unconscionability) |
Background: Terminated employee brought action against employer alleging violation of Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) and other causes of action. The Superior Court, King County, Bruce W. Hilyer, J., granted employer's motion to compel arbitration under employment arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court granted employee's petition for discretionary review.
Holdings: The Supreme Court, Bridge, J., held that: (1) WLAD did not require judicial forum for employee's claims; (2) whether arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable required remand for further factual determination; (3) agreement was not substantively unconscionable as having unilateral application; (4) attorney fee provision in arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable; (5) arbitration agreement's 180-day statute of limitations was substantively unconscionable; (6) substantively unconscionable provisions were severable; and (7) employer did not waive right to compel arbitration. Remanded. Madsen, J., filed a concurring opinion. |
|
|
Valley Medical Specialists v. Farber
194 Ariz. 363, 982 P.2d 1277 Ariz.,1999. June 18, 1999 (Public Policy) |
Medical practice filed suit to enforce a restrictive covenant in its shareholder/employment agreement with a physician. The Superior Court, Maricopa County, Cause No. CV 94-14865, Robert L. Gottsfield, J., denied the practice's request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the covenant was unenforceable. Practice appealed. The Court of Appeals, 190 Ariz. 563, 950 P.2d 1184, reversed and remanded. Granting review, the Supreme Court, Feldman, J., En Banc, held that: (1) covenants not to compete between physicians will be strictly construed for reasonableness, and (2) restrictive covenant was unreasonable and unenforceable.
Vacated and remanded. |
|
|
Lenawee County Bd. of Health v. Messerly
417 Mich. 17, 331 N.W.2d 203 Mich.,1982. December 23, 1982 (Mistake) |
Vendors sued purchasers seeking foreclosure of a land contract, sale of the property and a deficiency judgment. Purchasers counterclaimed for rescission. The Circuit Court, Lenawee County, Harvey W. Moes, J., rendered judgment for the vendors. The Court of Appeals, 98 Mich.App. 478, 295 N.W.2d 903, reversed, and vendors appealed. The Supreme Court, Ryan, J., held that: (1) the parties' erroneous assumption that the property was suitable for human habitation and could be used to generate rental income, when in fact the property was uninhabitable because of an inadequate and uncorrectable sewage system, was fundamental to the contract, however, (2) the equitable remedy of rescission was not proper because the risk of mistake was allocated to the purchasers by an “as is” clause in the contract.
Decision of Court of Appeals reversed. |
|
|
Wil-Fred's Inc. v. Metropolitan Sanitary Dist. of Greater Chicago
57 Ill.App.3d 16, 372 N.E.2d 946 Ill.App. 1 Dist., 1978 January 17, 1978 (Mistake) |
Lowest bidder on sanitary district's project for rehabilitation of water reclamation plant filed complaint for preliminary injunction and rescission. The Circuit Court, Cook County, Joseph M. Wosik, J., granted rescission and return of deposit to plaintiff and the defendant appealed. The Appellate Court, Perlin, J., held that, although bid proposal form provided that bid could not be cancelled or withdrawn, where plaintiff acted in good faith in bidding on sanitary district's project, error of plaintiff's subcontractor occurred notwithstanding exercise of reasonable care and the bid was substantially lower than next lowest bid, so that sanitary district was on notice that bid contained a material error, equity would not allow district to take advantage of plaintiff's low offer by requiring either performance of contract at the bid price or forfeiture of plaintiff's security deposit.
Affirmed. |
|
|
Karl Wendt Farm Equipment Co., Inc. v. International Harvester Co.
931 F.2d 1112 C.A.6 (Mich.),1991. April 26, 1991 (Impracticallity & frustration) |
Farm equipment dealer brought action against manufacturer alleging breach of contract with respect to termination of dealership, and manufacturer filed counterclaim for deficiency judgment. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, James Harvey, Senior District Judge, entered judgment finding no breach of contract and awarding deficiency, and appeals were taken. The Court of Appeals, Nathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) neither defense of impracticability nor frustration of purpose were available to manufacturer on the basis of drastic decline in the farm equipment market and large losses, which led it to sell its farm equipment division; (2) dealership agreement provision allowing manufacturer to withdraw product lines did not allow it to cease all operations without complying with the provisions for termination of a dealership; and (3) dealer did not timely raise applicability of Michigan Farm and Utility Equipment Franchise Act to calculation of deficiency.
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. |
|
|
Mel Frank Tool & Supply, Inc. v. Di-Chem Co.
580 N.W.2d 802 Iowa,1998. July 01, 1998 (Impracticallity & frustration) |
Landlord brought action against tenant, a chemical distributor, who vacated premises after city adopted ordinance prohibiting storage of hazardous chemicals. The District Court, Pottawattamie County, Keith E. Burgett, J., awarded landlord judgment for unpaid rent and damages to premises, and tenant appealed. The Supreme Court, Lavorato, J., held that: (1) tenant failed to establish that city ordinance substantially frustrated purpose of lease, and (2) lease provision covering partial destruction of premises resulting in temporary interruption of tenant's business was inapplicable to city's adopting ordinance.
Affirmed. |
|
|
Alaska Packers' Ass'n v. Domenico
117 F. 99 C.A.9 1902. May 26, 1902 (Modification) |
Libelants contracted with respondent, which owned a salmon canning plant in Alaska, to perform services as sailors in navigating a vessel from San Francisco to such plant and return, and in catching and canning salmon, while there, during the season, for which they were to receive a stipulated compensation. After reaching the plant they refused, without cause, to further perform the contract unless respondent's superintendent signed an agreement to pay additional compensation. He stated that he had no authority to do so, but being unable to procure other men, owing to the remoteness of the place and the shortness of the season, he complied with their demand, and a second contract was signed, identical with the first except as to the compensation to be paid. Held, that the agreement to pay additional compensation for services which libelants were legally bound to render under the old contract was void for want of consideration, conceding the superintendent's authority to make it, there being no just ground to claim, under the circumstances shown, that respondent voluntarily waived the breach of the original contract by libelants.
|
|
|
Kelsey-Hayes Co. v. Galtaco Redlaw Castings Corp.
749 F.Supp. 794 E.D.Mich.,1990. October 30, 1990 (Modification) |
Buyer under “requirements” contract sued seller for breach of contract. Seller moved for summary judgment. The District Court, Cohn, J., held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether purportedly superseding contracts calling for significant price increases were agreed to by buyer under duress.
Motion denied. |
|
|
Brookside Farms v. Mama Rizzo's, Inc.
873 F.Supp. 1029 S.D.Tex.,1995. January 27, 1995 (Modification) |
Seller brought suit against buyer alleging breach of contract for sale of 91,000 pounds fresh basil leaves and counterclaim was filed. Cross-motions for summary judgment were made. The District Court, Kent, J., held that: (1) oral modifications of price term in written contract were valid under Texas law; (2) buyer breached contract by refusing to accept minimum amount set forth in requirements contract; and (3) buyer violated Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.
Granted in part, denied in part, and dismissed in part. |
|
|
Vogan v. Hayes Appraisal Associates, Inc.
588 N.W.2d 420 Iowa,1999. January 21, 1999 (3rd Party) |
Borrowers brought negligence action against appraiser, alleging that appraiser's inspection reports to construction lender erroneously overstated extent of contractor's progress. The District Court, Polk County, Ray A. Fenton, J., entered verdict in favor of borrowers, and appraiser appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, and borrowers appealed. The Supreme Court, Carter, J., held that: (1) borrowers were third-party beneficiaries of contract between lender and appraiser; (2) appraiser's faulty inspection reports were cause of harm to borrowers; and (3) borrowers' recovery did not violate rule of Hadley v. Baxendale.
Decision of the Court of Appeals vacated; District Court judgment affirmed. |
|
|
Zigas v. Superior Court
120 Cal.App.3d 827, 174 Cal.Rptr. 806 Cal.App. 1 Dist., 1981. June 24, 1981 (3rd Party) |
Tenants petitioned for writ of mandate seeking, in a class action, damages for landlords' violations of financing agreement with the federal government limiting amount of rent landlords could charge tenants. The Court of Appeal, Feinberg, J., held that: (1) state law was applicable to determine whether tenants had standing to sue, and (2) tenants were entitled to maintain a third-party cause of action against landlords to enforce provisions of the financing agreement, in view of fact that the relationship between landlords and the federal government was contractual, and that the contract demonstrated that tenants were direct beneficiaries of the contract with standing, rather than incidental beneficiaries without standing.
Writ issued; remanded with directions. |
|
|
Herzog v. Irace
594 A.2d 1106 Me.,1991. August 06, 1991 (Assignment & Delegation) |
Physician brought action against attorneys for breach of assignment to physician of personal injury settlement proceeds collected by attorneys on behalf of their client. The District Court, Portland, Goranites, J., entered judgment in favor of physician, and the Superior Court, Cumberland County, Cole, J., affirmed. Attorneys appealed. The Supreme Judicial Court, Brody, J., held that: (1) finding that assignment was valid was fully supported evidence, and (2) attorneys were under no ethical obligation to honor client's instruction to disregard valid assignment.
Affirmed. |
|
|
Sally Beauty Co., Inc. v. Nexxus Products Co., Inc.
801 F.2d 1001 C.A.7 (Ill.),1986. September 26, 1986 (Assignment & Delegation) |
Successor in interest to distribution contract brought action against manufacturer of hair care products for breach of contract. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Frank J. McGarr, J., granted summary judgment for manufacturer, and successor in interest appealed. The Court of Appeals, Cudahy, Circuit Judge, held that position of predecessor in interest to distributorship, as wholly owned subsidiary of direct competitor of manufacturer of hair care products, was sufficient to bar delegation of distributor's duties under agreement, without consent of manufacturer.
Affirmed. Posner, Circuit Judge, dissented and filed opinion. |
