Hussein

Hussein All BLEW – Case problems Chapter 18 18-1 Issue: Which one of Cohen and Windsor is entitled to get the deposit? Rule of Law: Liquidated Damages Application: Liquidated damages means that provisions must paid by the breaching party to the party that has been breached. Conclusion: Cohen gets to keep that deposit 18-3 Issue: Should the court hold, as Ivanhoe argued, that Barton did not take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages?Rule of Law: Mitigation of Damages Application: Under the contract of Mitigation of Damages, when a breach of contract occurs, the innocent injured party Is usually held to a duty to mitigate or reduce the damages that he or she suffers. In this case, Ivanhoe suffers from the contract that Barton breached. Conclusion: Barton Is responsible for mitigating Phonon’s damages. 18-5 Issue: In whose favor should the court rule, and why? Rule of Law: Waiver of Breach Application: Under the doctrine of Waiver of Breach, the waiver erases any past action on the contract; the contract continues as If the breach had never occurred.

Conclusion: The court should rule In Clark Construction’s favor. 8-7 Issue: What are the requirements to recover on a theory of equals-contract? Rule of Law: Quasi Contract Application: To recover under the theory of equals contract, the party seeking recovery must show that 1- the party has conferred a benefit on the other party. 2- the party conferred the benefit with reasonable expectation of being paid.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

3- the party did not act as a volunteer In conferring the benefit. 4- the party receiving the benefit would be unjustly enriched If allowed to retain the benefit without paying for It.Conclusion: The requirement that Is most likely to be disputed In this case Is whether the party receiving the benefit would be unjustly enriched If allowed to retain the benefit without paying for It or not. Hussein By Albanians occurs, the innocent injured party is usually held to a duty to mitigate or reduce the Barton breached. Conclusion: Barton is responsible for mitigating Phonon’s action on the contract; the contract continues as if the breach had never occurred. Conclusion: The court should rule in Clark Construction’s favor.

18-7Issue: What are the requirements to recover on a theory of quasi-contract? Rule of Application: To recover under the theory of quasi contract, the party seeking party did not act as a volunteer in conferring the benefit. 4- the party receiving the benefit would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the benefit without paying for it. Conclusion: The requirement that is most likely to be disputed in this case is whether the party receiving the benefit would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the benefit without paying for it or not.