Posted: August 13th, 2013
Court Case Analysis
The case presented in 16.5 is that of a breach of contract by Ptarmigan Investment Company who had contracted Gundersons, Inc to construct a golf course for them. After just a third of the work had been completed, Ptarmigan Investment Company ran out of funds to cater for the rest of the project. Therefore, they would not be in a position to pay for the remaining two thirds of the work. Gundersons, Inc has sued the company in a bid to recover the lost profits which if granted would be given to them as damages. The question presented is whether Gundersons, Inc can recover the lost profits as damages.
It is evident that the investment company has gone against its agreement with the contractor. Ptarmigan Investment Company has rendered inferior performance of its obligations under the contract. In an unprecedented turn of events, they are unable to pay the contractor for their services. Although the work was yet to be completed, the contractor had anticipated a certain amount of profit. Therefore, they are justified under the law to claim compensation from the breaching party.
Gundersons, Inc can receive damages in form of monetary compensation. This is one of the methods used to remedy contract breaches. Compensatory damages are awarded in the event that a breach of contract has led to a loss of a bargain. In so doing it places the non-breaching party in the same position it would have been had the contract been fully performed with regard to the benefits accrued. In this case, payment to the contractor was estimated at $1,294,129 and payment had already bee made for a third of the work. The sum of money owed to restore the bargain made is $ 867,066, which would ensure that the contractor has earned their full profits. Gundersons, Inc can recover lost profits as damages because the contract was breached before completion of the construction work.
In this case, the two companies GTE Corporation and Franco Productions have bee or4ered to pay monetary damages to the football team whose nude pictures they exposed. However, Franco Productions have defaulted on their payments after they could not be located. The issue therefore is whether GTE Corporation is liable for the damages.
Monetary damages are awarded to a plaintiff after breach of a contract. Already, the football players were granted damages as compensation for the possibility that their reputation was tarnished. GTE Corporation had acted independently from Franco Productions and there was no proof of any collaboration between the two companies. This being the case, none of them was liable for the other’s actions. Under the law, granted that one of the companies was a subsidiary or partner of the other and there was any loss incurred then liability would be inevitable. The damages would then be shared amongst the individual partners of the company.
GTE Corporation only had to pay for the compensatory damages it had incurred and leave Franco Productions to suffer its fate. Franco Productions were required by the law to pay damages to the football players who had sued them. By defaulting, another case could be filed against them and eventually if found, they would have to act according to the law. By then probably the damages owed to the plaintiff would have been increased. In the event that the court proves the two companies had worked together in exposing and circulating the nude pictures for their own benefit, then responsibility would be divided equally between them. This implies that failure of one party to abide by the law would place liability on the other. Therefore, in the case against GTE Corporation, the court would rule in favor of the plaintiff in this regard the football players.
In this case, Nolan Bates, a subscriber to an internet program sues its software developer disabling the software program. This was done after he had refused to pay the license fee required for use of the program. In an ethical perspective, both parties acted unethically. For instance, Bates was fully aware of the terms and conditions following the use of the software program. Despite engaging its services, he showed no intention of making any payments. This was contrary to what was actually expected of him.
On the other hand, Apricot.com was in breach of ethical conduct twice. The manner in which it addressed its client was not in order. Being a recognized company, they should conduct themselves in an official manner. The mail sent to Bates was offensive and should have been done in a more polite way. This shows disregard for their customer, something for which they could also be sued. Additionally, disabling the software without notifying the client was also unethical. Although it was not stipulated anywhere either in writing or verbally that notice should be given under such circumstances, there is a proper way to handle customers. Again, their actions speak against them with regard to customer service.
Legally, I think Bates stands a good chance of winning albeit on ethical grounds. This is because no form of contract was given to him stating how such a matter could be handled in the event of it happening. Therefore, the software company had no legal obligation to issue any notice or conduct itself in a certain manner. They operated in an independent manner as indicated in the way they conduct their affairs. They could also sue Nolan Bates for failure to pay the required license fees. This is however an issue at their discretion. Whether they decide to sue is up to them especially because the court could help them recover the money owed to them by Bates.
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.