Week 4 Discussion Peer Responses
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Seton Hall University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2613
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by AdmiralWillpowerSeahorse20
Jada Porter Fundamentals of Business Law Week 4 Discussion Board Peer Responses Question 1
Ciera, Nice discussion post this week. You explained the purpose behind Article 39 clearly, noting that it is meant to deter people from breaching a contract. I agree with you in encouraging the adoption of Article 39 of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution in your jurisdiction. I think a policy like Article 39 is necessary to deter people from breaking contracts. Your point on applying Article 39 to unforeseen breaches of contract was interesting. I do not believe that Article 39 would be a successful piece of legislation if it were to be applied universally. I think the courts should apply Article 39 on a case by case basis in order to carefully consider the circumstances of every breach. I also agree that there may be room for exploitation with Article 39. There is definitely a risk that legal parties may claim an excessive amount of damages knowing that the breaching party would have to pay out more. Citation: The Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment §39
Natalia T, Great discussion post. You seem to have interpreted Article 39 of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution similarly to the way that I did. Your stance against the adoption of Article 39 in your jurisdiction was understandable. However, I have to disagree that the traditional method to compensating damages for contract breaches is sufficient enough. I do not think the traditional method is completely effective in making a legal party whole again after a breach of contract. There are instances where legal parties may not have been able to fully recover their losses because court awards can be subjective. In my opinion, Article 39 offers a better method to not only compensate damages but also deter someone from breaking another contract in the future. Of course, the courts would have to closely assess the factors of each contractual breach before deciding to apply Article 39 of the Restatement (Third) of Restitution.
Citation: The Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment §39
Question 2
Carol,
Your perspective on the Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital lawsuit was refreshing. I think your opinion shows that breach of contract lawsuits are not always black and white. We both seem to agree that the court’s decision was overall fair. Your concern about the court’s award covering a span of five years was reasonable. However, I have to disagree with this because the hospital did not adhere to the terms of their contract. If the Norwalk Hospital failed to present an argument that was strong enough against the time frame of the damages, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the five years was unjust. I personally feel that was a strategic weakness on the hospital’s part. It seems that the hospital’s defense overlooked this because they did not mention the other factors that you provided against Gianetti’s award. Aside from that, I was also surprised to learn that Gianetti found himself in several other lawsuits. Citation: Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital, 304 Conn. 754 (2011)
Dijon, I enjoyed reading your discussion post. I agree with your opinion that the court’s final decision in
the Gianetti vs. Norwalk Hospital lawsuit was pretty fair. It was very clear that Dr. Gianetti was a
lost volume seller at the time that he was wrongfully fired by the Norwalk Hospital. The Norwalk Hospital chose not to follow the guidelines of their contract, which was unfair to Gianetti. The hospital also could not provide any evidence that proved they were justified in doing so. They could not meet the reasonable certainty standard as you mentioned, which definitely weakened the hospital’s case against Dr. Gianetti. I also agreed that Gianetti recovering five years of his losses was acceptable in this case. I believe that Dr. Gianetti’s practice was genuinely impacted within that time span due to the hospital’s breach of contract. Therefore, he was entitled to the court award that he received. Citation: Gianetti v. Norwalk Hospital, 304 Conn. 754 (2011)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help