Precision Concepts Corp v. General Employment &Triad Personnel Services -The facts: General employment contacted precision regarding a job opening and sent a potential employee, Tavery Tan, for an interview. Precision hired her but refused to pay GE for procuring the employee. Precision filed a complaint that there was no contract and the court rendered judgment to GE on a counterclaim. Precision appealed. -The Issue: were all the elements of a contract present to make the contract enforceable? -The decision: affirmed in favor or GE The Reasoning: the face that the appellant did not like the fee indicated does not preclude the finding of a binding contract. Appellant intended to negotiate, but never did so. Appellant hired Ms. Tan with the knowledge of the fee and did so without negotiation. A unilateral contract was formed and Precision became obligated to pay 1/3 of Ms. Tan’s first year salary. Hartland Computer Leasing Corp v. The Insurance Man, Inc. -The facts: The Insurance Man selected some computer equipment and Hartland bought it and leased it to them with a price and a guarantor.
The lease stated that Hartland made no warranties and the lessee should look to the vendor for any needed repairs. Lease payments were due regardless of condition of the machine. After problems arose the lessee stopped paying, Hartland sued but the trial judge concluded it was a contract of adhesion and ruled against Hartland, who appealed. -The Issue: was this an adhesion contract? -the decision: reversed in favor of Hartland -the reasoning: in Missouri an adhesion contract is a form contracted created and imposed by a stronger party upon a weaker part as this or nothing.
All the evidence surround this transaction say that it was only the equipment and not the terms of the contract which failed to live up to expectations. They did possess the right to seek relief under the express and implied warranties made by the vendor, but they sought relief from the wrong party. Richards v. Flowers -The facts: Richards wrote Flowers about interest in a lot. Richards wanted to deal with Flowers directly and not with a realtor, and Flowers replied with the amount she would expect for the property.
Richards then sent a telegram to Flowers saying they had agreed to buy the lot, but Flowers had entered into an agreement to sell the property to a third party. The court ruled that Flowers’ original response did constitute an offer to sell, but said that the telegram was not an acceptance under the statute of frauds. The court ruled for Flowers, Richardses appealed. -the issue: did the series of communications between the parties constitute an offer and an acceptance, forming a binding contract? -the decision: affirmed for Flowers the reasoning: the wording “expect to receive” does not constitute an offer, but only indicating the lowest price he was willing to consider, not an express offer to sell the property. It is a mere quotation of price. Since there was never an offer there was never a contract. There is no need to look at whether Richards’ responses was an acceptance. MPG Petroleum, Inc. v. Crosstex CCNG Marketing, LTD. -the facts: Crosstex owns and operates a natural gas pipeline that crosses MPG’s leasehold. They entered negotiations where Crosstex would by 100% of the natural gas produced by MPG’s well.
They signed a letter agreement that they would build a flowline, but MPG decided it would be too expensive. They developed a new plan where the natural gas would be delivered directly to another pipeline and signed another agreement. The agreement outlined committing the gas, constructing the flowlines, financial responsibility, installation, and cost. The location was of dispute-according to Crosstex there was no meeting of the minds and no contract. When the parties were not able to agree on a location the formal contract was never signed and Crosstex refused to proceed.
MPG filed suit, Crosstex filed for summary judgment, the summary judgment was granted and MPG appealed. -the issue: was the contract legally binding? -the decision: affirmed -the reasoning: the letter agreement left the point of delivery up to future negotiation and was not specific to all essential terms. The letter was unenforceable agreement to agree and there was no contract. Cushing v. Thomson -the facts: an anti-nuclear protest group sent an application to seek permission to rent a room. The Alliance hoped to use the room for a dance.
The Adjutant general mailed a contract offer to the Alliance, agreeing to rent on specific terms. The offer required a signed acceptance. The day that Cushing received it he signed it and put it in the office’s outbox. The next day Cushing received a call stating that the offer was being withdrawn, and although Cushing said he had already accepted the general stated that it was withdrawn. They brought suit against Governor Thomson. The court ruled that a contract had been formed and Thomson appealed. -the issue: did a binding contract exist?
Hamer v. Sidway -the facts: Story Sr. promised to pay Story II $5000 if he would not drink, use tobacco, swear, etc until he was 21. He did it, and when he turned 21 he called his uncle who replied he would get it to him as soon as possible. The uncle died before he paid him and the estate admin, Sidway, refused to pay him. Hamer (who had bought the right from Story II) brought a suit, ruled against him saying that the nephew had no consideration. The plaintiff appealed. -the issue: was there enough consideration on the part of the nephew to have a contract? -the decision: reversed
-the reasoning: the nephew abandoned his legal right to do something and is sufficient consideration
Quarture v. Allegheny County -the facts: Quarture owned land in PA, a portion of it was taken when the county relocated and widened a state highway. Quarture needed legal help to recover damages from the county and hired Sniderman. A written contract was entered into with Sniderman to help him against the county and get 10% of recovery for himself. Sniderman got Quarter $1650, but the plaintiff was dissatisfied and wished to appeal that award. There was a new agreement and Quarture would pay him 33% instead. When Sniderman did it and asked for the money, Quarture said there was no consideration and wouldn’t pay. The court awarded the money to Sniderman, Quarture appealed. -the issue: what was meant by the second contract? Was it binding? -the decision: reversed
-the reasoning: consideration cannot be considered when the party has a preexisting obligation. The lawyer was doing no more than he was already obligated to do. If you change the contract you must change the consideration.
Bremmeyer v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co. -the facts: the state of Washington awarded Kiewit a contract to construct several miles of I-90. The highway needed some work before construction began, so Kiewit subcontracted the clearing operation to Bremmeyer who agreed to pay Kiewit to have all the lumber and mill it all and keep the proceeds. Before Bremmeyer finished the state terminated Kiewit’s contract, and Kiewit cancelled Bremmeyer’s contract. Although Kiewit received a lot in cancellation costs, he paid $38 to Bremmeyer who refused it and brought action. The state ruled in favor of Kiewit and Bremmeyer appealed. -the issue: was Kiewit required to pay Bremmeyer the value of the merchantable timber that was uncut? -the decision: reversed
-the reasoning: the statute used by Kiewit to win did not intend to bar actions by unregistered subcontractors against prime contractors. Each contractor is knowledgeable about financial protections needed for any particular job involved.