GVPT331 Short Exam 2 Cases

Baker v. East Coast Properties

Issue: Did EC breach a duty to Baker? and what was the proximate cause?

Facts:

• East Coast is a building for elderly + ambulatory issues

• Baker alleges that D went into his unit unannounced/no consent

  • installed alarm on door unbeknownst to D

• D walks in for maintenance and claims they knocked, P claims didn’t

  • alarm sounds

  • Baker goes up to check it out, falls injuring head and neck

Procedural History:

• Baker brings suit to EC

• EC moves for summary judgment

• Granted

Rule of Law: Common Law

Holding: Granted summary judgement

Reasoning/Comments:

• Baker’s alarm installation is an intervening clause

  • he was injured bc he heard alarm and going to check it out is what caused his fall —> conceded this

• lumps duty of care with foreseeability instead of leaving them as two separate tort elements

• Got up without help + alarm = contributory negligence

Hamer v. Sidway (1891)

Issue: Was there a contract?

Facts:

• Uncle drunkenly promises nephew to pay him $5k on his 21st bday if he never drinks, swears, smokes, or gambles

• Nephew does that and writes to collect, uncle says yep got it but I want you to receive this when you deserve it

  • puts money in account and says he’ll let it accrue interest

• Uncle dies before being able to pay

• Sidway argues that contract had no consideration so it was invalid and that Nephew benefitted from abstaining

Procedural History:

• Trial court found that Nephew deserved the $, since Nephew followed through

  • appellate court reversed

  • Hamer appealed to court of appeals

Rule of Law:

 Exchequer chamber in 1875, Pars. Cont. 444, 2 Ken, Comm. (12th Ed.), Pollock 465, Shadwell v. Shadwell, Talbott v. Stemmons 

Reasoning/Comments:

• Consideration isn’t just one party profiting, in this case nephew abandoned legal freedom as inducement of promise

• condition subsequent

Holding: Appealed order should be reversed

Mills v. Wyman (1825)

Issue: Does a promise made to repay another party for caring of son who is no longer part of the family sustain an action? Can you pay because of a promise?

Facts:

• Son Levi Wyman is sick after being at sea and is taken care of by plaintiff for two weeks,

  • Wyman’s dad, defendant, wrote a letter promising to pay

Procedural History: Assumspit brought to recover compensation, D argued there was no consideration for the promise and filed a nonsuit which P filed exceptions

Rule of Law: 3 Bos. & Pul. 249
Holding:No. Nonsuit was right

Reasoning:

• There needs to be a preexisting obligation

• Levi is grown and his debts don’t transfer to data anymore

• Promises aren’t contracts, theres no injustice if the promise wasn’t fulfilled

Holding: Promise does not sustain an action

Hawkins v. McGee (1929)

Issue: Was D’s claim of a “hundred per cent perfect hand” a legally enforceable claim/is there a contract? Would damages include suffering and damage to hand?

Facts: Operation to remove scar tissue from P’s right palm + skin graft. When P’s father went to D’s office to ask ab operation. D said  “I will guarantee to make the hand a hundred per cent perfect hand or a hundred per cent good hand.” D confessed that this operation was kinda experimental for him

D argues: no reasonable man would understand that his “hundred per cent” claim was made with intention of contract

Procedural History:

• Assumpsit against D for alleged warranty of success

  • ruled for P, D motioned for nonsuit and directed verdict which were denied

  • D moved to set aside verdict bc it was contrary to evidence, agaist the weight of i and the law, and damages

    • ordered that verdict could either be set aside or P could remit $500 which he didn’t wanna do

Rule of Law: Common Law

Reasoning: Evidence that D repeatedly solicited from P’s father the opportunity to do surgery, instructin gjury to determine damages of pain and suffering was erroneous

• damages = value of perfect hand - value of hand in present condition and nothing more

Holding:New trial.

Cea v. Hoffman (2012)

Issue: Was there a contract between Ceas and modular if they forewent principles of contract formation? Was the Cea's counteroffer a rejection of Modular’s 1st and 2nd offers.

Facts: Ceas made a downpayment of $172,116 on log home from American Timbercraft but it got liquidated and acquired by Modular who acquired work in progress, pending orders, and deposits/down payment. Modular sends Ceas a letter saying they can get a refund or finish the job with minor schedule tweaks. Ceas sent two letters, one saying lets finish it but changed a date, delivery, and additional terms. Modular ghosted them, Ceas sent letter 2, which said nvm refund please. Modular ghosted + no refund

P’s: Modular gave 2 offers. First letter was in response to offer to complete and second is in response of offer to refund. There was consideration

D: Modular’s letter was too indefinite to be a valid offer, when Cea’s made counteroffer that was a rejection of both.

Procedural History:

Rule of Law:Second Restatement of Contracts

Reasoning:

Holding:

Drennan v. Star Paving Co. (1958)

Issue:

Facts:

Procedural History:

Rule of Law:

Reasoning:

Holding:

In the Matter of Baby M

Issue:

Facts:

Procedural History:

Rule of Law:

Reasoning:

Holding:

Kanaley v. D.L. and W Railroad (1959)

Issue:

Facts:

Procedural History:

Rule of Law:

Reasoning:

Holding:

Railroad Co. v. Stout

Issue:

Facts:

Procedural History:

Rule of Law:

Reasoning:

Holding:

Benjamin Wright Jr. v. House of Imports (2012)

Issue:

Facts:

Procedural History:

Rule of Law:

Reasoning:

Holding:

Schmidt v. Gateway Community Fellowship (2010)

Issue:

Facts:

Procedural History:

Rule of Law:

Reasoning:

Holding:

Martin v. Glass (2011)

Issue:

Facts:

Procedural History:

Rule of Law:

Reasoning:

Holding:

Macomber v. Dillman (1986)

Issue:

Facts:

Procedural History:

Rule of Law:

Reasoning:

Holding:

Estate of Berthiaume v Pratt MD

Issue:

Facts:

Procedural History:

Rule of Law:

Reasoning:

Holding: