State Farm Final Cases|With 100% Complete Solutions|Already Graded A

Holt v. Home Depot ... Schneiderman v. Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC Dfd. 'Trump Univ' to sell courses in real estate investing, Trump made promotional video Pltf Attorney General alleged illegal educational institution, sought injunction, damages, penalties, restitution under statute for cases of 'persistent fraud', charged for misleading 5k students Court dismissed - exceeded 3yr limit on statutory causes of action, statute didn't provide state w independent cause of action for fraud. Pltf appealed. The decision was reversed and remanded. Legal Principles: Lower court cited precedent stating pltf has no independent course of action Significant precedent contradicting ^^ Mitchell v. State Farm Plaintiff: Sherri Mitchell, who was in a car accident with her husband while in a car owned by her father Defendant: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co On October 25, 1995, 17 year old Mitchell signed a release with State Farm agreeing to settle the claim for $2,500 When she turned 18, filed a motion for declaratory judgement alleging she lacked capacity at the time State Farm said that since she was emancipated she has capacity Trial Court in favor of State Farm Mitchell appealed Reversed and remanded LEGAL PRINCIPLES: Emancipated minor Removes parental control Does not enlarge the minor's capacity Bissell v. Oreck Bissell manufactured Oreck vacuum cleaners in Ireland, got into a legal battle over a separate issue and signed a Settlement Agreement that included details about Oreck purchasing raw materials and parts from Bissell In the SA, Bissell noted that Oreck had to pay an estimated $230K for the raw materials and parts Oreck argues that any uncertainty in the estimation or significant deviation from that figure must be resolved against Bissell because Bissell supplied the estimated figure. Decision:injunction granted LEGAL PRINCIPLES: Unilateral mistake Contract will not be changed unless the party making the mistake demonstrates that the error resulted from a mistake in material fact Mistake in judgment or value will not entitle the mistaking party to reformation of the contract Bissel making a poor estimate = mistake of judgment, no change in the contract Deere v. Haralson Haralson owned Farmer Supply Store, Inc. which sold equipment from the John Deere Company Deere alleges Haralson signed a guaranty before selling the business to pay for "past and/or future extension of credit" from Deere In contract, guarantor is referred to as "undersigned". Haralson name is not typed anywhere on the guaranty Haralson alleges his signature is illegible, signature appears twice, so does his handwritten address Haralson refuses to pay, says he didn't sign it, Deere employee affidavit says that he saw him sign it Both parties move for summary judgment, trial court denies Haralson and partially approves Deere Haralson appealed the decision, Court of Appeals reversed and said a signature alone does not identify a guarantor DECISION: Reversed, Haralson is in fact identified on the guaranty by his signature LEGAL PRINCIPLES: Guaranty Construe Statute of Frauds narrowly Can a promisor on a guaranty be sufficiently identified by his signature alone? SoF interpreted to require in a guaranty the debt, principal debtor, promisor, promisee There is no requirement that the writing must be of a certain type or form, even a completely handwritten guaranty is enforceable Roberts v. Mike's Trucking, Ltd. Manager called pltf his 'sexretary', talked about his sex life, invited her to sit on lap, etc Pltf asked manager to stop, he didn't Pltf became less productive, anxiety attacks and low blood pressure Pltf sued for hostile work environment in violation of title VII, jury ruled w pltf, dfd appealed DECISION: Affirmed LEGAL PRINCIPLES:Hostile environment reasonable person test Title VII: Roberts work performance was definitely hindered, she was certainly pissed, had told him to stop, prescribed anti-anxiety meds to help cope Pretty obviously sexual harassment Fazio v. Cypress/GR Houston Fazio wants to buy retail property, concerned about financial health of primary tenant Fazio assured they have positive financial outlook, sends letter of intent to purchase Cypress agreed to provide all info, didn't include 2 details about tenant's financial problems Entered into purchase agreement, tenant declared bankruptcy, Fazio sued for fraud Jury ruled with Fazio but no damages bc no proximate cause between fraud and deteriorated property value, court judgment notwithstanding- ruled w Cypress, Fazio appealed DECISION: Affirmed PRINCIPLES: Seller failed to disclose material information Judgment notwithstanding the verdict Direct damages: out of pocket, benefit of the bargain - determined at time of sale/fraud Consequential damages: foreseeable, directly caused by the fraud Laemmar v. J. Walter Thompson Company Plaintiffs were employees of the defendant who were threatened that if they would not sell their share of stocks in the company then their employment would be terminated Plaintiffs sold the stock, later sued for rescission Defendant moved for summary judgment, approved DECISION: Appellate court reversed summary judgment, went to a jury trial PRINCIPLES:Duress, contract may be voidable Agreement to sell the stock may be rescinded because they were under duress at the time of the making of the agreement Threatened termination of employment deprived them of their ability to exercise free will At-will employees can still be fired whenever, but the contract itself was voidable Coker v. Pershad AAA contracted with Five Star to perform towing and auto repair services for AAA Pershad, a tow truck driver for Five Star, responded to a call from AAA Pershad got into a fight with Coker, passenger in the car, and assaulted Coker with a knife Coker sued Pershad, Five Star, and AAA Court determined Pershad was an employee of Five Star, and Five Star is an IC of AAA, thus AAA is not liable since principal's are not liable for negligence of an IC Coker appealed the ruling in AAA's favor The Decision Coker argues AAA controlled the means and method of the work for Five Star, thus it's all E-E relationships and AAA is liable AAA just assigned work, did not oversee how it gets done AAA is not just in the towing business, they could have done it with their own employees Affirmed lower court's ruling The Legal Principles Is a principal liable for the actions of an employee of an IC? No Did AAA control the means and method of the work for Five Star, indicating an E-E relationship? Contract stated Five Star is an IC, Five Star purchased all their own shit no right of control over the manner in which the work is to be done Mayo v. North Carolina State University Mayo is a tenured professor at NC State informs department chair he is leaving September 1, resignation is accepted In October, Mayo is informed that he had been overpaid, Mayo refuses to pay NC State's "Prepayment Rule" was a basic business practice they employed all the time, but was not included in the contract of Mayo's employment NC State used other evidence outside of written documents to establish the existence of the prepayment policy NCSU wins arbitration, Mayo wins in appeal to court, NCSU appeals The Decision Mayo's payment was explicitly determined in the appointment letter, annual salary letter, and directory of policies: Affirmed, Mayo does not have to return money The Legal Principles Parol evidence rule, parol evidence not usually accepted, but common practices might be an exception with a partially integrated or ambiguous contract contract was fully integrated = parol evidence may not be introduced RIVERISLAND COLD STORAGE v. FRESNO-MADERA PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION California Supreme Court RCS borrowed from F-M, defaulted on loan, both parties agreed to a restructuring of the debt, deal was a fully integrated contract with 3 months of forbearance and added eight properties as additional collateral RCS signed it without looking at the details of the contract RCS defaulted again, sues F-M saying they were told forbearance was for two years and only included two properties as collateral Trial court awarded summary judgment to F-M, Court of Appeals reversed, F-M appeals to California Supreme Court The Decision Terms of a valid written agreement should not bar evidence challenging the validity of the agreement itself Affirmed Legal Principles Exception to parol evidence rule, parol evidence rule bars oral terms as evidence to a contract, but frauds, mistakes, and misrepresentations that would make the contract voidable are acceptable as admissible evidence Fraud undermines the 'meeting of the minds' ethos to a contract Stender v. Twin City Foods, Inc. Stender grows peas, in a contract with Twin Cities Food, who is obligated to harvest the peas and pay a price for them based on the quality of the peas TCF had many similar contracts with other farmers with staggered planting dates so that there could be staggered harvesting times TCF did not harvest Stender's peas when it was time because uncommon temperature fluctuations caused many of their farmers to have peas that matured at the same time Stender sued TCF for a breach of contract Contract stipulated TCF could delay harvest of crop for 'adverse weather conditions' Trial court ruled in favor of TCF, Stender appealed on the grounds that the trial court had improperly interpreted that clause The Decision View contract as a whole to determine the intent of the contracting parties Contract should be viewed in light of the usages of the pea industry existing at the time of the contract since TCF is a large processor and Stender is an experienced farmer Record supports the trial court's conclusion that the defendant passed on the plaintiff's peas was because of the weather conditions beyond reasonable expectations Once a contract is established, usage and custom are admissible into evidence to explain the terms of the contract even if the ordinary or legal meaning is unambiguous Both parties were aware of the contract's design to stagger the harvesting of crops Defendant reserves the right to uphold the statement of the contract Affirmed Legal Principles Exception to Parol Evidence Rule Trade usage, meaning of the phrase 'adverse weather conditions' Does TCF have to pay Stender for the unharvested peas that resulted from the temperature fluctuations? Holt v. Home Depot Holt was a manager at Home Depot In Home Depot's employee manual, they are promised not to be retaliated against for complaining about management Holt complains about his manager, gets fired, sues claiming promissory estoppel, Home Depot appealed The Decision Must prove (1) Home Depot made clear promise (2) Home Depot could have reasonably expected Holt to rely on the promise (3) Holt did reasonably rely on it (4) employment was terminated as a result (5) enforcement of the promise is necessary to prevent injustice Home Depot's motions denied in favor of Holt Legal Principles Promissory Estoppel Exception to Employment at Will Did Holt rely on a promise from the Home Depot employee manual that he would not be retaliated against for making a complaint about management? Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins Ann Hopkins proposed for partnership, denied, sued under T7 for sex discrimination Hopkins was accomplished, many supported her candidacy, some didn't Hopkins had an abrasive relationship with other staff members There were signs that some partners reacted negatively to her candidacy because she was a woman PW had many partners but not many women partners The Decision Remarks at work based on sex stereotypes do not themselves prove gender played a part in the employment decision Remanded Legal Principles Title VII Sex Discrimination Plaintiff must show that the employer actually relied on her gender in making the decision Established prima facie case with sexist comments from partners Employer must demonstrate why it made its decision at the time, show legitimate reason for employment action (hopkin's abrasive personality) Alberty-Velez v. Corporation de Puerto Rico Alberty co-hosted a tv show on a public television station, signed a new contract for each episode Alberty only worked a certain number of days for a certain salary, provided her own content and clothes TV station did not withhold income or social security taxes or provide benefits Alberty became pregnant and tv station stopped contracting her, she sued for discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, which violates a federal statute Court judged in favor of Puerto Rico, Alberty appealed The Decision Skilled position, Alberty provided tools and instrumentation to perform, tv station did not assign additional work beyond contracts, paid for performance not time period, no benefits, taxed as IC All points to IC Alberty alleges, though, that the tc station controlled the manner of work by directing her during filming by selecting sites and hours Affirmed Legal Principles Criteria for evaluating employer vs. independent contractor status Control over the manner, location, and hours of work is critical to IC/E analysis BUT it must be considered in light of the work performed and the industry at issue It's impossible to film in different spots on different schedules, so this is just a thing necessary to the work regardless of IC or E