(a)
Case summary: WP is a New York-based linen rental company. The company C is its competitor that deals in the same linen rental. The company WP’s customers breached their contract and entered into another agreement with the company C. The company WP filed a suit against the company C.
To find: Two important policy interest at odds in wrongful interference and their priority.
(b)
Case summary: WP is a New York-based linen rental company. The company C is its competitor that deals in the same linen rental. The company WP’s customers breached their contract and entered into another agreement with the company C. The company WP filed a suit against the company C.
To find: The general interest in soliciting business for profit is a sufficient defense.
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Chapter 6 Solutions
The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases
- Subject: Business Law and Regulations Topic: Nonstock corporation ABC Foundation engaged in providing feeding programs to homeless children and giving of food packages to victims of calamities using the funds of the foundation for this purpose. Mr. X, who is a member of the foundation is in a quandary as to whether or not the practice of the foundation in using its funds for the mentioned purposes is valid. He is quite fearful that with recent surge in calamities, it might deplete the resources of the foundation, and therefore, affect his own interest having made a contribution therein. He intends to question this practice of the foundation. Is his intention meritorious?arrow_forward2. The company's objects stated that it was to carry on a business as gown makers but the business had evolved into making veneered panels. No change had been made to the objects clause to reflect this change. A coal merchant had supplied coal to the company which was ordered on company notepaper headed with reference to the company being a veneered panel maker. The company subsequently refused to pay the coal merchant. – Can the company do so? Give reasons for your answer.arrow_forwardA co-worker of Illinois licensee Mona shared a client’s confidential information with her and asked Mona not to tell anyone. Instead of keeping it to herself, Mona gave the information to another licensee. Which statutory duty has been breached? Adhere to the brokerage agreement’s terms Employ reasonable skill and care in performing brokerage services for the client Keep all confidential information provided by the client confidential Serve the client’s best interestsarrow_forward
- 19) The Elle Corporation manufactures fingernail polish. Suzy buys a container of Elle's fingernail polish, applies it to her nails, and suffers a severe allergic reaction. She sues Elle under the implied warranty of merchantability, The test for determining whether Suzy will recover is whether: A) the nail polish she bought was suitable for the needs of the average consumer. B) the nail polish she bought properly performed its function of coloring one's nails. C) such a reaction in an appreciable number of consumers was reasonably foreseeable. D) the ingredient causing the reaction was foreign to the nail polish or natural to it. nating one model, Bobby noticesarrow_forwardMr. Antipatiko filed a suit against Gerald, a registered medical technologist. Mr. Antipatiko went to the clinic and requested for Hepa B test needed for his employment. It was Gerald who obtained the blood from Mr. Antipatiko and consequently processed it for sampling. However, the test result indicated a “REACTIVE/POSITIVE”. Gerald performed another confirmatory test to ensure a reliable result. Still, the second test done had the same result. Gerald then issued the lab result indicating “REACTIVE/POSITIVE” after conformity with the Pathologist. Mr. Antipatiko was declined employment and was so furious and went to the clinic to confront Gerald stating that the result was inaccurate. He threatened Gerald saying that he will file an administrative case against him. If you were Gerald, how will you address and handle the situation? Provide your reason and basis to prevent the threatened suit.arrow_forwardCase: Brandt v. Boston Scientific Corporation and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center Facts: Brenda Brandt was admitted to Bush Lincoln Health Center for treatment of urinary incontinence. She had a surgical procedure in which a sling was implanted. The manufacturer, Boston Scientific, recalled the item. Brenda had to have the sling surgically removed. She sued the manufacturer and the designer. In this case, Brandt’s bill from the Health Center reflects that of the $11,174.50 total charge for her surgery. $1,659.50, or 14.9%, was for the sling and its surgical kit. What provision of the UCC did the plaintiff sue under? What was the reasoning and decision of the court hearing the casearrow_forward
- Which of the following health policy provisions states that the producer does NOT have the authority to change the policy or wave any of its provisions? O A Time Limit on Certain Defenses OB. OC OD. Reinstatement Entire Contract Change of Beneficiary MM QUATE Ahiler 372-256-906arrow_forwardGibson v. Manchester City Council (1979) Issue: The issue on appeal was whether the defendant's letter of February 1971 was adequately construed as an offer which Gibson accepted or an invitation to treat. Facts: The defendant City Council had adopted a policy of selling council houses to its tenants. The claimant was a tenant of such a council house, who had applied for details of the house he was renting and applicable mortgage terms, using the printed form designated and supplied by the defendant for this purpose. In February 1971, the city treasurer responded to this application stating, 'The [council] may be preparing to sell you the house at the purchase price…' and providing mortgage details. This letter also stated that it did not amount to a 'firm offer' of a mortgage and invited the claimant to make a formal application using an enclosed form. In March 1971, the claimant returned the completed form to the defendant. Following local elections in May of the same year, control…arrow_forwardMa3. Explain in brief. Sally Henderson is an employee of Good Eats Restaurant. Sally's contract with Good Eats Restaurant states: "Sally Henderson shall ensure the bathrooms and dining room area are reasonably clean during operating hours." Sally's good friend James is also employed by Good Eats Restaurant as a parking attendant, a person who parks customers’ cars. On a very busy night at Good Eats Restaurant, without the authorization of Good Eats Restaurant, Sally decided to help her friend James park cars. Sally injures a customer due to Sally's negligent driving while parking cars. The injured customer sues Sally and Good Eats Restaurant. Is it likely that Good Eats Restaurant will be determined to be liable to the injured customer. BRIEFLY EXPLAIN.arrow_forward
- Number 20: Which of the following is a nonwrongful dissociation?arrow_forward1. Life Company processes information furnished by others to transfer title to real estate from a seller to a buyer. In performing this task for a sale of land from Eren to Armin, the furnished information is mistaken. The contract between Eren and Armin that includes the mistake may be rescinded if the mistake concerns a. a detail on which the parties had a true “meeting of the minds.” b. a fact that is important and central to the contract. c. a third party, such as County Title. d. a term in the contract subject to only one reasonable interpretation.arrow_forwardDetermine whether the statement is legally correct (true) or not (false). 1. A sale with a right to repurchase is an example of a sale where the object is subject to a suspensive condition. 2. Gross inadequacy of price and failure to pay the purchase price gives the vendor the remedy of annulment of sale as against the vendee.arrow_forward
- BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage LearningEssentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage LearningAccounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
- International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education