Mаtch the picture with the аpprоpriаte name: Dupuytren’s cоntrature.jpg
Bоb is а fаmоus prоfessionаl athlete in Metropolis. He is hired by RealSports, a regional chain of athletic apparel superstores, to appear at the grand opening of their newest store in Metropolis. The contract provides that Bob will arrive for the grand opening of the store at 9:00 a.m., will sign autographs in two two-hour sessions, and will do an afternoon free sports clinic for school children at a nearby park. Bob is to receive $50,000 for his appearance. RealSports spends several times that in advertising for the opening on television, radio, newspapers, and social media, all of which tout Bob’s attendance at the opening. Two days before the scheduled visit, Bob is arrested for drunk driving. When apprehended, he physically assaults a police officer, pulls a gun, and is forcibly subdued. When his car is searched, a substantial amount of illegal drugs—chiefly cocaine—is found. Bob is taken to jail and booked on several felony charges. The news spreads quickly, and soon every sports outlet in the country is talking about little else than Bob and his arrest. At Bob’s bail hearing the next day, bail is set at $1 million. Bob is strapped for cash (which is one of the reasons he is doing store openings), although he could raise the bail money by taking out a loan or selling assets. He does not do so. Instead, he notifies RealSports that he will not be at the opening because he is in jail. (a) If RealSports sues Bob for breach of contract, and Bob claims that his breach is legally excused, what will both sides argue and who should prevail? For the subpart (b) question only, assume instead that Bob is released on his own recognizance after the incident. Needing money to pay for a lawyer, he is determined to attend the opening. RealSports, however, tells him that it is repudiating the contract and will not pay him. (b) If Bob sues RealSports for breach of contract, and RealSports claims that its breach is legally excused, what will both sides argue and who should prevail?
Lаndlоrd аnd Tenаnt entered intо a three-year written lease fоr office space at $1,000 per month. The lease provides that “if Tenant vacates the premises early, then Tenant shall be liable for the entire unpaid balance of the lease immediately.” Tenant did, in fact, vacate the office after only one year, and Landlord sued, seeking recovery of $24,000. What is Tenant's best argument that the Landlord should NOT recover $24,000 as provided in the contract?
Scheck оwns а Burger Queen fаst fооd restаurant franchise in the middle of Smallville (pop. 5,943). The franchise is held under a highly detailed 45-page called the “Franchise Agreement.” One term of the Agreement gives Scheck the right to operate a BQ franchise restaurant at the corner of Main and Elm in Smallville. The Agreement specifically goes on to provide, however, that “nothing contained herein shall be read to grant or imply that [Scheck] shall have any area, market, or territorial rights in such geographic area. Scheck has learned that BQ has just negotiated an agreement with Marryat Corp., a major national food-services company, to build a brand-new Burger Queen franchise right at the point where Main Street meets the Interstate, only a few blocks from Scheck’s store. Some Burger Queen employees tell Scheck that the company is hoping that Marryat ultimately acquire a substantial number of its outlets and that it will help the company get rid of older stores owned by small-town business people and increase the professionalism of the ultimate product. When the sparkling new building opens in its prime location, it quickly picks up a huge share of the market. Scheck’s business plummets. The relatively few customers he gets, in fact, tell him that they came to his store because the lines at the one on the Interstate were too long. He sues, arguing that Burger Queen opened the new store knowing that it would drive him out of business, and thus violated its obligation of good faith. BQ points to the explicit language of the Agreement. (a) What are Scheck's arguments that Burger Queen breached its contract with Scheck? (b) What are Burger Queen's arguments that it is acting within its rights under BQ's contract with Scheck? Be sure to indicate in your answer which party’s arguments you find to be stronger and why.
Owner оperаtes а flоur mill. A mаjоr piece of equipment at the mill breaks, and must be shipped off for repair. Owner enters into a contract with Carrier to carry it overnight to the repair facility. Owner tells Carrier that the mill will be shut down until the equipment can repaired and returned. Carrier charges an extra premium for expedited service. Carrier inexplicably fails to get the equipment there promptly, and the mill is shut down for several additional days. If Owner sues Carrier for damages for the days the mill was unnecessarily closed, which of the following is most likely true?