Law Homework Help

For each assigned case, analyze the issue based on the following criteria:

Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).

Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.

Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).

Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear.

Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.

Be prepared to defend your decision and to objectively evaluate the other points of view

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

case 1 q1

AES was formed in 1996, hiring eight employees. At a meeting of these employees in 1997, they expressed concern that the company might not sur- vive as it was using outdated equipment. At that meeting, a company executive asked the employees to remain with the firm and stated that the company was likely to merge with another firm, and if it did, the original eight employees would receive 5% of the value of the sale or merger as a reward for stay- ing. In 2001, the firm was bought by another firm, and the seven employees who had stayed sought to collect their 5%. The company refused to pay on grounds there was no contract. Did the company and employees have a bilateral or a unilateral con- tract? Explain. [Vanegas v. American Energy Ser- vices, 302 S.W.3d 299 (2009 WL 4877734, Sup. Ct., Texas, 2009)

case2q2

R-Vision manufactures recreational vehicles (RVs). Representatives of Associated Home met R-Vision’s regional sales manager, Darrell Higgins, and the product manager, Timothy Cunningham, at a con- vention where they discussed the possibility of using Associated Home as a dealer of R-Vision’s RVs in Albuquerque, New Mexico. At the time of the convention, Rocky Mountain RV was R-Vision’s dealer in Albuquerque. Higgins contacted Rocky 10 Mountain and told it that if Rocky Mountain did not make better efforts to represent R-Vision’s product, then R-Vision would find another dealer in Albu- querque. Higgins closed out the conversation by informing Rocky Mountain that R-Vision would “pursue somebody else.” R-Vision faxed Associated Home an application to become R-Vision’s dealer in Albuquerque. Associated Home faxed in return a completed dealer application form. Higgins then called Associated Home to explain that Associated Home needed to submit orders for RVs as part of the dealer application. In response to that telephone call, Associated Home submitted orders for four RV units. Higgins then contacted Rocky Mountain to tell it that R-Vision had “another dealer in your area that wants the product, that has ordered product and is going to represent the product.” Rocky Moun- tain’s owner called Higgins, and Higgins told him that Rocky Mountain would no longer be R-Vision’s dealer in Albuauerque At that point Rocky Moun- tain’s owner informed Higgins that, under New Mexico law, R-Vision had to give Rocky Mountain 90 days’ written notice of its action and that Rocky Mountain could still the dealer by placing orders before the expiration of the 90-day period. Thereaf- ter, Rocky Mountain ordered more RVs. By this point, Higgins had already told Asso- ciated Home that it would be the dealer. Higgins told Associated Home about the 90-day issue with Rocky Mountain but also told Associated Home that they would work it out and that Associated Home would be the dealer. Associated Home did not receive any RVs from R-Vision. Associated Home filed a complaint charging that R-Vision breached a contract with it by not delivering four RVs. Associated Home argues that the order forms confirm the contract. Did the forms meet the requirements of a valid contract? [Associated Home and RV Sales, Inc. v. R-Vision, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95631 (D.N.M. 2006).]

case 3 q3

Sarah and Eddie Hogan wanted to sell 2.5 acres of land through their real estate agent, Darita Richardson. On December 10, 2001, Warren Kent offered to purchase the land for $52,500. An “Agreement to Buy or Sell” was created, which Kent signed right away. One term of the agreement was that the offer would expire on December 11, 2001, at 3 p.m., and it stated additionally, “Time is of the essence and all deadlines are final except where modifica- tions, changes, or extensions are made in writing and signed by all parties.” Although Richardson scheduled a meeting on December 11, 2001, at 2 p.m. with the Hogans, the Hogans failed to appear. However, the parties agreed to a two-day extension, lasting until December 13, 2001, at 3 p.m., and the extension was binding and irrevo- cable according to the “Addendum to Agreement to Purchase or Sell.” The Hogans signed both docu- ments at 9 a.m. on December 13, 2001. At about 11 a.m., Kent also signed the addendum. However, neither Kent’s agent nor Richardson contacted the Hogans before 3 p.m. about Kent’s acceptance. After 3 p.m., Richardson realized that the Hogans had not placed the date and time next to their signa- tures. When she met with the Hogans, the Hogans placed the date and the time as 4:48 p.m., informing Richardson that they, the Hogans, had changed their minds about the sale Kent sued for specific perfor- mance of the contract. What effect, if any, did the failure to communicate the acceptance of the offer before 3 p.m. have in terms of whether a contract was formed? What was the appellate court’s reason- ing? [Kent v. Hogan, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 2539.]