Week One Homework Problems:
9.4 No, Winkle does not receive the profit-sharing bonus. Under the equitable doctrine of quasicontract, a court may award monetary damages to a plaintiff for providing work or services to a defendant even though no actual contract existed between the parties. This doctrine does not apply where there is an enforceable contract between the parties. In this case, there was a written employment contract between the parties. Thus, for Winkle to be entitled to the profitsharing bonus the court must find that the written employment contract was altered in writing or by an executed oral contract.
Winkle testified that the agreement to receive profitsharing was an oral agreement. Thus, the question becomes whether the oral agreement was executed, i.e., fully performed. The court held that because Winkle had not been paid his salary and bonus, ...view middle of the document...
The court found that the prior policy was a separate and independent agreement that came to an end by its own terms. It contained no automatic renewal clause and failed to the bind the parties in any way after the expiration of the original policy. None of the communications amounted to an acceptance.
In addition, the Court held that silence could be considered acceptance where the prior dealings between the parties so indicate or where the recipient retained the benefit of valuable services. The court, however, found that the past dealings of the parties established no course of conduct between the parties and that since the second policy was never in effect. Andrus never received any benefit. JC Durick Insurance v. Andrus, 525 A2nd 249 (1980)
11.4. No, Gough cannot recover the cost to re-erect the thirty-two fallen trusses. An agreement on the part of one to do what he is already legally bound to do is not sufficient consideration for the promise of another. In this case, Gough assumed no obligation or duty that he was not bound to perform under the terms of the original contract. Under both agreements Gough agreed to erect and properly place the same number of trusses. Accordingly, Gough is not entitled to any sum not contemplated by the original contract. Robert Chuckrow Construction Company v. Gough, 159 S.E.2d 469 (Ga.App. 1968).
13.1. No, the estate cannot rescind the contract based on its unilateral mistake. A unilateral mistake occurs when only one party to a contract is mistaken about a material fact regarding the contract unless (1) the other party knew of the mistake, (2) the mistake is a result of a clerical or mathematical error not the result of gross negligence, or (3) the mistake is so serious as to make the enforcement of the contract unconscionable.
In this case, the statement about the size of the property was not the essence the contract the and the purchasers committed no fraud or negligent misrepresentation to justify rescission. The parties agreed to purchase the lot for a lump sum and the contract fully expressed their intentions. Steele v. Goettee, 542 A.2d 847.