Grimes V. Young Life, Inc.

Grimes V. Young Life, Inc.

Facts and Procedural History:

Olivia Grimes died at Carolina Point Camp which isowned by Young Life, while on a three person giant swing Olivia Grimes fell from the swing causing death. Phillip Wade Grimes is a personal representative of Olivia’s estate, files suit against Young Life and Inner Quest, the company responsible for the provided material and construction of the giant swing. Inner Quest filed a crossclaim against Young Life arguing that Young Life should indemnify it against any Judgement. However, Young Life argues that the purpose of their contract was for the construction of the giant swing and not just for the materials. Both proved their point Inner Quest stated their definition of the contact so did Young Life.

Issue:

Is there enough factual evidence to deem the defendant responsible? Is the language definition used by the defendant in its state still held valid in the court?

Rule:

Plaintiff must provide factual evidence that the defendant was negligent in providing adequate procedures.

Application:

Inner Quest was reckless or negligent in failing to develop adequate safety procedures, failing to adequately warn Young Life of the danger of the three-person swing, and that the dangerous operation of the three-person swing was foreseeable.Thus causing the death of Olivia Grimes, during the use of the giant three person swing built by Inner Quest. Now the plaintiff must provide the evidence to prove that Inner Quest was negligent. Through the case Inner Quest argued that the contract between them and Young Life was strictly just for the materials to build the giant swing and never for the construction of it. However, further investigation of these documents the court found that the words “project”, “construction”,”clent”,”stallation”, were used and all indicate that there was an agreement for Inner Quest to construct the giant swing.

Conclusion:

The court found Inner Quest fully responsible forthe death of Olivia Grimes and granted Young Life’-s motion for summary. This study source was downloaded by 100000861003072 from CourseHero.com on 03-30-2023 01:57:28 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/113525881/BLAW-ASSIN-7pdf/

Problem Case #4

Facts and Procedural History:

Piece of America (POA) hired Gray Loon Marketingto design and publish its website. POA requested that Gray Loon make several changes, some in which required major programming work. Loon sent a bill to POA subsequently. However, POA’s representative stated that they needed time to obtain additional funds. Furthermore, Gray Loon is filing a suit against POA and its principals of nonpayment.

Issue:

Does the UCC apply to the contract between both GrayLoon and POA?

Rule:

In order for Gray Loon to prove the UCC applies to the contract, he must prove a breach of contract with POA.

Application:

In order for Loon to prove a breach in contract,1) he must prove the existence of a contract; 2) the performance by the plaintiff or some justification for nonperformance; 3) Resulting damages to the plaintiff. The UCC therefore applies to the contract between POA and Gray Loon and must pay for its principals of nonpayment and;4) failure to perform the contract by the defendant

Conclusion:

In this case the UCC does apply to the contract deeming POA fully liable for nonpayment.Problem Case #8 This study source was downloaded by 100000861003072 from CourseHero.com on 03-30-2023 01:57:28 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/113525881/BLAW-ASSIN-7pdf/

Facts and Procedural History:

Schumacher and his family moved to Finland, Minnesotato operate a bar and restaurant called the Trestle Inn, which his parents owned. Schumacher claimed 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 leave the business and a large parcel of land to him when his first parent died. In suspicion that his parents would sell the inn and the adjoining property, Schumacher brought a suit for a restraining order to prevent them from doing so, claiming a breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Schumacher’s employment at the inn and his right to possess the adjoining property were terminated.The trial court held that Schumacher’s oral contract was invalid because the contract needed to be in writing under applicable Minnesota law.

Issue:

Was Schumacher’s claim for unjust enrichment a validclaim?

Rule:

In order for Schumacher to prove he has a valid claim for unjust enrichment, he must prove the five factors of an enrichment claim.

Application:

In order for Schumacher to prove he has a valid claimfor unjust enrichment, the court must evaluate the five factors of enrichment. Was the defendant enriched by the activity of the plaintiff and did the enrichment occur at the expense of the plaintiff?Was the enrichment unfair or unjust? Are the defenses available to the defendant? And What types of remedies is the plaintiff requesting? With these five favorable questions, the court is able to find that the defendant was enriched by the activity of the plaintiff, that the enrichment did occur at the expense of the plaintiff, that there were no defenses available to the defendant, that the enrichment was proven to be unfair and unjust.

Conclusion:

Schumacher is able to provide the five factors ofenrichment, therefore Schumacher does have a valid claim for unjust enrichment.Problem Case #10 Facts and Procedural History: This study source was downloaded by 100000861003072 from CourseHero.com on 03-30-2023 01:57:28 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/113525881/BLAW-ASSIN-7pdf/

The Weitz Company, which is a general contractor, received an invitation to bid on a planned nursing facility. Weitz’s bid to the project owner incorporated the amount of H&S’s bid. Because the bid was speculative, there was no contract formed between Weitz and H&S who refused to honor its bid. Weitz completed the project with different subcontractors at a greater expense.

Issue:

Does Weitz have an alternative to regain the lowerprofit margin from their refusal to honor the bid?

Rule:

In order for H&S to be liable for refusal to honor its bid, Weitz must prove the contract was breached by applying UCC.

Application:

In order for H&S to prove a breach in contract,they must prove the existence of a contract and, the performance by the plaintiff or some justification for nonperformance and, failure to perform the contract by the defendant, as well as resulting damages to the plaintiff.

Conclusion:

H&S in fact did not honor its bid which caused theplaintiff damages, but since there was no existence of a true contract H&S is not held liable for the damages. This study source was downloaded by 100000861003072 from CourseHero.com on 03-30-2023 01:57:28 GMT -05:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/113525881/BLAW-ASSIN-7pdf/