Title: Case briefing.
Richman v Tower city Grains
Facts: The Richman entered into an oral contract to sell 10000 bushels of 58 pounds weight wheat to tower city grains. The Richman did not deliver the grains in fulfillment of the contract arguing that the tower city grains used to receive grains from other farmers. The Reichmann also contended the delivery date was much later than the stipulated date. The trial court ordered for judgment in favor of tower city grains granting specific performance of the contract.
Issues: Weather the trial court ordered for the judgment in favor of the tower city grains granting specific performance was an abuse of discretion and erroneous as a matter of law.
Holding: The appellate court affirmed that the trial court holding for judgment’s in favor of the Tower city grains and granted specific performance of contract.
Rule of Law: the appellate court placed great weight on specific performance and filed bond for cost of an appeal.
Reasoning: The appellate court granted a motion to file bond for cost on appeal reversing the judgment and remanded with leave to amend.
Delinda Middleton Taylor v Seattle marines
Facts: Delinda Middleton Taylor who was a spectator ta a baseball game got injured by a baseball throw during match warm-up while spectating from outside of the pitch. Taylor sued the Seattle Marines for allegedly negligent warm-up throw. The trial court granted the Marine motion and dismissed Taylors appeal.
Issues: Weather the court dismissed the Taylors negligent claim based on the premise that professional players have no affirmative duty to protect the spectators from throw injuries who should take caution during the game.
Holding: The court of appeal held that the primary risk assumptions of the risk barred the action of the spectators.
Rule of law: The appeal placed great weight upon the “no duty to aid” affirming the case.
Reasoning: The court of appeal affirmed the case making Taylor to dismiss it for the lack of evidence to support the argument as a result of the “no duty to aid” and because of the professionalism involved.
Ford Motor Company V Nicole Jacobsen
Fact: A child passenger gets injured in an automobile accidents involving Ford Motor Company. The Supreme Court entered a judgment on jury verdict for the manufacturer plus cost forcing the guardian to the passenger to appeal while the automobile manufacturer cross appealed. The court of appeal remanded in parts, basing the determination on the affirmative defense of alteration or modification of the product did not apply since the passenger’s father who placed the restraint shoulder behind the passenger chest was not party to litigation granting review.
Issues: Weather the Supreme Court granted a review based on the affirmative defence4 of alteration and modification and not party to litigation.
Holding: the Supreme Court held that modification of shoulder restraint was affirmative defense to product liability regardless whether the father was party to litigation.
Rule of law: The Supreme Court granted a review based o “party to litigation”
Reasoning; the case was reversed and remanded citing that the sufficiency of the evidence in law to jury does not depend on the doctrine of evidence.
Clinton James V Star Credit Corp
Facts: Clinton James purchased a freezer unit from Star credit Corp which had a maximum price of $300 on time of agreement. The whole contract was on unconscionable bases since the plaintiff had paid a total of $ 619.86 of the agreed $1439.69 of the total price. The Supreme Court granted that the judgment reforming the contract so as to total 619.69.
Issues: whether the Supreme Court granted the judgment reforming the contract it was unconscionable since the agreed price was beyond limit price of the freezer unit.
Holding: the Supreme Court granted that the judgment reforming the contract was unconscionable due to overpriced limit of the freezer unit.
Rule of law: the Supreme Court argued on the unconscionable nature of the contract granting the judgment of reform.
Reasoning; the Supreme Court granted the judgment of reform amending by changing the payment called for therein to equal the amount of payment made by the plaintiff.
Burger King Corporation v John Rucezwicz
Facts: A franchisor brings an action against a franchisee alleging breach of franchise obligation and trademark infringement. The District court entered a judgment in favor of the franchisor making the franchisee to appeal. The appellate court reverses the case denying the rehearing. The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal since the jurisdiction of the Florida statutes should be treated as a petition to writ.
Issues: Whether the District court ruled against the franchise court, the court of appeal had no obligations to reverse and deny rehearing.
Holding: The supreme court held it was not clear that the court of appeal had found that the long-term statutes of Florida was unconstitutional as appealed and did not have jurisdiction over appeal, the jurisdiction statements would be treated as a petition fo writ of certiorari and exercise of long-term jurisdiction did not affect the due process.
Rule of law: The Supreme Court found that the long –arm statutes of the Florida jurisdiction was unconstitutional as applied and the jurisdiction statement would be treated as sa petition for writ of certiorari which did not offed the due process.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the petition since the long-arm statutes were unconstitutional and did not offed the due process.