Case Activity 5: Basic Case Problems
Analyze the following Business Case Problems and answer questions pertaining to each Case Problem.
Use the basic steps in legal reasoning form “IRAC method” Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion along with the Facts for each case.
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
Paper should be in APA Format along with cite/reference page. No more than 3 pages Non Plagiarism paper.
Please see below the cases and use the “IRAC” method along with Facts for each case.
Case Problem 18-5: Condition Precedent
Case: [Mike Building & Contracting, Inc. v. Just Homes, LLC, 27 Misc.3d 833, 901 N.Y.S.2d 458(2010)]
Question: Which of the two parties involved breached the contract?
Case Problem 19-4: Liquidated Damages and Penalties
Case: [Planned Pethood Plus, Inc. v. KeyCorp, Inc., 228 P.3d 262 (Colo.App. 2010)]
Question: Was the loan’s prepayment charge reasonable, and should it have been enforced? Why or Why not?
Case Problem 20-3: Spotlight on Goods and Services – The Statue of Frauds.
Case: [Fallsview Glatt Kosher Caterers, Inc. v. Rosenfield, 794 N.Y.S.2d 790 (N.Y.Super. 2005)]
Question: Rosenfield claimed that the contract was unenforceable because it was not in writing and violated the UCC,s Statue of Frauds. Is the contract valid? Explain.
Case Problem 22-5: Breach and Damages
Case: [DeRosier v. Utility Systems of America, Inc., 780 N.W.2d 1(Minn.App. 2010)]
Question: Because Utility charged nothing for the fill, was there a breach of contract? If so, would the damages be greater than $9,500? Could consequential damages be justified?
Case Problem 23-4: Implied Warranties
Case: [Rothing v. Kallestad, 337 Mont. 193, 159 P.3.222 (2007)]
Question: Kallestad asked the court dismiss this claim on the ground that, if botulism had been present, it had been in no way foreseeable. Should the court grant this re quest? Why or Why not?
Case Problem 33-5: Liability Based on Actual or Apparent Authority.
Case: [Summerall Electric Co. v. Church of God at Southaven, 25 So.3d 1090 (App.Miss.2010)]
Question: The subcontractors sued the church, contending that it was liable for the payments because NCS was its agent on the basis of either actual or apparent authority. Was NCS an agent for the church, thereby making the church liable to the subcontractors? Explain