Overview
Please answer only the question that is asked, but do so thoroughly. State your conclusion, the reasoning behind that conclusion, and include the applicable law where appropriate. Several of these questions are in multiple parts so please be sure to read the whole question and answer all of the questions asked. Use the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion) Framework to answer all questions.
1.On January 2, Wabash Construction Company, a general contractor, executed a written contract with Anderson Brick, Inc., a subcontractor. The contract relates to a major “strip mall” building project in Morgantown, and Wabash faces a deadline of October 31 in its contract with The Mackie Consortium, L.L.C., the owners of the new mall. In the agreement between Wabash and Anderson, the parties stipulate that “time is of the essence” in terms of performance of the bricklaying work, and that the deadline for Anderson’s completion of the bricklaying work is July 15. There is also a “liquidated damages” clause in the contract between Wabash and Anderson, indicating that if the work is not completed by July 15, Anderson will pay $2,000 in damages for every day the bricklaying is not completed beyond July 15.
Anderson does not complete the bricklaying work by July 15. In fact, the project is not finished until August 30, and Wabash now claimsliquidateddamages from Anderson in the amount of $92,000 (representing 46 days beyond the July 15 deadline, multiplied by $2,000 per day.) Anderson refuses to pay the $92,000, and Wabash sues.
At trial, Anderson’s attorney seeks to introduce the following evidence: 1) the testimony of Henry Anderson, Anderson’s owner, who is willing to testify under oath that at the time of the signing of the contract, Wabash’s general manager, Fred Stein, said “Pay no attention to the July 15 deadline in the contract; if you need more time, all you have to do is ask;” and 2) a crumpled index card, purportedly in Fred Stein’s handwriting, indicating “no ‘hard and fast’ deadline on Anderson brick work.”
Should the trial court judge admit that evidence?
2.Maurice wishes to purchase a small restaurant named "Tasty Burger" in his community from Todd who tells Maurice that, while he loves the teenagers who have frequented his establishment, he is tired of flipping burgers and wants to spend more time fishing on the lake. Maurice has Todd sign a covenant not to compete prohibiting Todd from opening a restaurant within 25 miles of Tasty Burger for one year. Assuming that the covenant was drafted properly, is it likely to be enforced, and why or why not? Also, discuss arguments for and against covenants not to compete in the sale of a business.
3. Carter Morley and Erena Erickson live side by side intown homes joined together by a shared wall. Bothresidencesare in need of new exterior paint. On Monday, Morley calls a painter, Tom Sizemore, having selected his name from the classified section of the phone directory. Morley describes his address, the physical dimensions and structure of his home, and he agrees with Sizemore that the work will be performed that Friday. Sizemore estimates that with his crew of five, and given the relatively small size of the home, the work will only take one day to complete. Morley advises that although he will have to work a fourteen-hour day on Friday, he would like to have the work completed in his absence. In passing conversation with his neighbor Erickson, Morley advises her of his “home improvement” plans.
Early Friday morning, Sizemore and his team arrive at the address, but by mistake, they begin work on Erickson’s side of building. Although Erena is home, she does not object to the work, nor does she inform Sizemore and his crew of the mistake. Midway through the day, she offers them fresh-squeezed lemonade and ham sandwiches, and they heartily accept.
Upon completion of the work at 7:00 p.m. Friday evening, Sizemore knocks on Erena’s door and asks if “the man of the home”is present, that he would likeMorley to review the work and pay the agreed-upon price for the work. Erena chuckles, and “breaks the news” that the painting crew has made a mistake, one to her benefit. Erickson proclaims “I do not owe you one dime, because you do not have a contract with me; I will give you ten minutes to remove yourself and your materials frommyproperty, or I will call the police.”
Do Erickson and Sizemore have a contract? If so, why? If not, are there any other theories of recovery available to Sizemore?
4.Maurice is excited because a developer plans a subdivision full of high-priced homes that will adjoin his property. Maurice is so pleased that he puts in a new swimming pool to celebrate. Maurice believes that the subdivision will significantly increase the value of his property. The developer, however, changes his mind and decides not to develop the subdivision. Maurice is angry and asks if he can sue the developer, particularly since he can establish reliance. What would you tell Maurice and why? Discuss whether you agree with the law on this issue and why or why not?