Murah Corp. Case Study

Issue: Was SmithStern a Limited Liability Corporation or a corporation? Also, was there a breach in the contract?

Topnotch Computers, the owner of a computer store, contracted with Repair Guru, the owner of a computer repair business, to allow Repair Guru to own and operate a computer repair service offered within the Topnotch Computers store. Topnotch Computers subsequently terminated the three -year contract with Repair Guru with thirty-five months remaining. Five months thereafter Repair Guru was able to contract with another firm, Best Computer, to provide its computer repair equipment for use by Best in its stores. Repair Guru then filed suit, claiming that it was entitled to conduct the computer repair operations for Topnotch Computers for an additional thirty-five months and that through such operations it would have earned a profit of $150,000. Decision for whom and in what amount and

The contract was for a total of 62,748 jogging suits that would be custom made for girls and boys. The total contract price was for $ 749,103.60 that included the shipping of the merchandise, which would be shipped within six purchase orders. On or about August 29, 1994 they (Goody’s) terminated their contract in writing, which validates a right to cancel. The parties agreed to amend the first shipment date, Goody’s deny that all other shipment dates were to be amended as well. Goody’s feel that there was any “wrongful, unlawful, or without good cause or justification” eras on their behalf.

On December 11, MD received an order for a total price of $22,100. Barbor Furniture Ltd. (Barbor) provided a deposit of $9,000 which was recorded as revenue when it was received on December 13. Barbor was not billed until January 2. The order was not shipped until after the year end on January 2. The remaining balance owing was recorded in accounts receivable and

Once all computer systems have been sanitized, they can then be disposed of. There are various ways in which this can be accomplished, some more profitable to the company than others.

36. Principle of Law: The transaction between Browne and Houlihan was just under negotiation process and not form the contract. Browne did not acknowledge Houlihan’s e-mail and did not reply to accept Houlihan’s request, so he sold the television set to another. Houlihan then purchased a new set more expensive than Browne’s set. Both of them didn’t break the contract because there’s no contract between them. Therefore Houlihan had no legal basis to sue Browne for $1,000.

Martinrea International Inc. (TSX:MRE) is a Canadian manufacturing company servicing customers around the world, primarily in the automotive sector. Founded in 2001, Martinrea has grown rapidly through both acquisition and organic growth, and currently employs over 14,000 people in 44 plants across North America, South America, Europe and Asia. The Vaughan, Ontario-based company has four sectors in its corporate structure, which include aluminum, fluids, metallics and modules. Martinrea’s four core sectors service mainly the automotive industry, however, the company has also begun to seek a broader cross-section of clientele, investing in lower volume assembly line parts such as buses, recreational vehicles, air conditioning, military and farm appliances.

g. On December 31, 2012, the company completed the work on a contract for an out-of-province company for $7,900 payable by the customer within 30 days. No cash has been collected and no journal entry has been made for this transaction.

For each year that the Higginses and the Hargroves were not released from the liability associated with the guarantees, the Phillips and Mikowski agreed to pay the Higginses and the Hargroves $10,000 to each family under the Purchase Agreements. When the Phillipses and Mikowski refused to make the payments due under the Purchase Agreements in 2014, the Higginses and the Hargroves filed complaints in the District Court of Maryland for Talbot County, seeking the payments due under the Purchase

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)

He may also feel that the contact was breached and he is owed restitution. Marshall in this disagreement should first attempt to resolve this dispute without pursuing any legal action. He could use his faith and biblical teachings, to show errors of ways. He could argue the contract unenforceable due to fraud and inept execution, if he must rely on legal relief. The business relationship is best suited to be served also. The common law duty is to always act in good faith. Good faith performance is an implied agreement in nearly every contract in American common law jurisdictions (Burton, 1980). In the contract in question the promise was made, upholding an expectation of receiving the terms agreed upon in the contract. The issue is to act in good faith or to enforce the law. Marshall can secure not only supply, price, but also control of the benefits earned by his supplier. From a legal aspect, Marshall has acted in bad faith. A minor capacity to sign a contract is the bad faith act on Marshall’s part.

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)

Contract Law Case Study Both the parties in the question have come to a problematic situation

X permitted S to take the lamps. On the next day the price of the lamps on the market rose to $60.00 each. On the same day B sent his truck to pick up the refused lamps from X, and was told that the lamps had been turned over to S. B immediately contacted X and told him that "We have no deal, and I want my lamps back right now." Claiming that he had a contract with B, S refused to return the lamps.

L & Co dispatched the goods on credit to Blenkarn, who resold 250 dozen to Cundy. Blenkarn did not pay for the goods. L & Co sued Cundy to recover the handkerchiefs. It was held that the contract between L & Co and Blenkarn was void for unilateral mistake. L & Co intended to deal with Blenkiron & Co, not Blenkarn. Cundy was liable to return the handkerchiefs to L & Co because no right of ownership had passed to him.