Posted: February 5th, 2019

GRAND CANYON BUS340 MODULE 3 Assignment Problems: Chapters 9, 10, 11, and 12

Details:Using the Module 3 readings, course website links, the GCU Library, the Internet, and/or other sources of literature as needed, complete the following problems:Chapter 9 – Problems and Problem Cases: Problems 9 and 10Chapter 10 – Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 6Chapter 11 – Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 7Chapter 12 – Problems and Problem Cases: Problem 10Responses should not typically exceed 200 words for each problem and should contain citations from relevant sources if applicable.Complete the problems for each chapter first by stating the question(s) you are addressing, then by stating your responses. All problems and answers should be turned in on the same page/document.Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the GCU APA Style Guide, located on the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.Chapter
9 Case Study: Stephen Gall v. McKeesport
Municipal Water Authority
Stephen Gall and his family became ill
after drinking contaminated water supplied to their home by the McKeesport
Municipal Water Authority. They filed suit against the utility, arguing, among
other things, that the utility had breached the UCC implied warranty of
merchantability when it sold them contaminated water. The utility moved to dismiss
their complaint, arguing that since water was not “goods,” the UCC did not
apply. Should the Galls’ complaint be dismissed?Chapter
9 Case Study: Schumacher v. ParentsIn 1994, Schumacher and his wife and
their two daughters moved to Finland, Minnesota, to operate a bar and
restaurant called the Trestle Inn, which was owned by his parents. Schumacher
claims that his parents induced him to leave his previous job and to make the
move by orally agreeing to provide him a job managing the inn for life and to
leave the business and a large parcel of land to him when his first parent
died. Schumacher was given free reign in managing the inn and was allowed to
retain all profits of the business but was not given any salary or wage. While
he was operating the inn, Schumacher used his own funds to build a home for his
family
on his parents’ land, install a well,
buy equipment for the business, and develop various marketing tools for the
business. In the fall of 1998, Schumacher suspected that his parents were about
to sell the inn and the adjoining property. He brought suit for a restraining
order to prevent them from doing so, claiming breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, among other claims. In October 1998, the parents notified
Schumacher that his employment at the inn and his right to possess the
adjoining property were terminated. The parents moved for summary judgment. The
trial court held that Schumacher’s oral contract claim was invalid because the
contract needed to be in writing under applicable Minnesota law. However, does
Schumacher have a valid claim for unjust enrichment?Chapter
10 Case Study: Pernal v. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox ChurchPernal owned a parcel of real estate
adjacent to property owned by St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. Pernal sent a letter to the church indicating
that he was offering it for sale for “$825,000 cash/mortgage, ‘as is,’ with no
conditions, no contingencies related to zoning and 120 days post closing
occupancy for the present tenants.” This offer was dated June 3, 2003, and
expressly provided that it would remain open for a two-week period. On the same
day, Pernal also sentthe same offer to sell the property on
the same terms to another prospective purchaser, White Chapel Memorial Association
Park Perpetual Care Trust. On June 4, the church sent a letter indicating that
it accepted the terms of the offer that Pernal had set forth in his letter.
However, the church’s letter also referenced an attached purchase agreement.
The purchase agreementagreed with Pernal’s purchase price and
the close occupancy period, but contrary to the offer, it contained additional
terms. The church’s president signed this attached purchase agreement, but
defendant did not sign it. The offer by letter dated June 3, 2003, did not
reference other potential purchasers. On June 10, White Chapel, by letter,
offered to pay $900,000 cash for the property, with no conditions or
contingencies related to zoning and 180 days post closing occupancy rent
free. On that same date (June 10),
Pernal sent a letter to both potential purchasers. This letter indicated that “amended
offers” had been received. The letter further provided that the offer would
remain open for two weeks’ time as provided in the initial offering letter. On June
13, the church sent a letter to Pernal, stating that the offer had been accepted
on June 4, and that an enforceable contract was formed. The church sued Pernal for
breach of contract. Will it win?Chapter 11 Case Study: Cantu v. San Benito
Consolidated Independent SchoolCantu was hired as a special education
teacher by the San Benito Consolidated Independent School District under a
one-year contract for the 1990–91 school year. On August 18, 1990, shortly
before the start of the school year, Cantu hand-delivered to her supervisor a
letter of resignation, effective August 17, 1990. In this letter, Cantu requested that her final
paycheckbe forwarded to an address in McAllen,
Texas, some 50 miles from the San Benito office where she tendered the
resignation. The San Benito superintendent of schools, the only official
authorized to accept resignations on behalf of the school district, received Cantu’s
resignation on Monday, August 20. The superintendent wrote a letter accepting
Cantu’s resignation the same day and deposited the letter, properly stamped and
addressed, in the mail at approximately
5:15 pm that afternoon. At about 8:00 am
the next morning, August 21, Cantu hand-delivered to the superintendent’s office
a letter withdrawing her resignation. This letter contained a San Benito return
address. In response, the superintendent hand-delivered that same day a copy of
his letter mailed the previous day to inform Cantu that her resignation had
been accepted and could not be withdrawn. The dispute was taken to the state
commissioner of education, who concluded that the school district’s refusal to
honor Cantu’s contract was lawful, because the school district’s acceptance of
Cantu’s resignation was effective when mailed, which resulted in Cantu argued that the mailbox rule should not
apply because her offer was made in person and the superintendent was not
authorized to accept by using mail.Is
this a good argument?Chapter
12 Case Study: Tinker Construction v. Scroge
Tinker Construction had a contract with
Scroge to build a factory addition for Scroge by a particular date. The
contract contained a penalty clause exacting daily penalties for late
performance, and Tinker was working hard to complete the building on time. Because
prompt completion of the addition was so important to Scroge, however, Scroge
offered Tinker a bonus if it completed the factory addition on time. Scroge
also learned that the supplier of parts for machinery that he had contracted
for had called and said that it could not deliver the parts on Scroge’s
schedule for the price it had agreed to. Because there was no other supplier, Scroge
promised to pay the requested higher price. The factory addition was completed
on time and the parts arrived on time. Scroge then refused to pay both the
bonus to Tinker and the higher price for the parts. Were these promises
enforceable?