Discussion response

All I need is a response to each peer response below from their DQ.

• Gone With the Wind (Miller v. Mills Construction Inc., p. 453)

What word did the lower court leave out of its opinion that prompted Mills Construction to appeal? How did the appellate court respond to Mills Construction’s argument? Who are the stakeholders in the Miller case, and how might they be impacted by this breach? What are some differences and examples of material and immaterial breaches you can think of involving contracts (verbal, implied, or written) in your own life as a consumer, spouse, employee, businessperson, or student? (Avoid the wire example that often comes up in a Google search. The Shapiro Library is a good source for finding further information.)

Peer response 1. Mills Construction Inc. was to construct a series of buildings for the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Mills decided to subcontract Wilma Miller, who runs her business under the name of Double Diamond Construction, for the erection of one particular building. As Double Diamond began building they discovered issues with the materials used to construct the building. With this knowledge, Wilma stopped the construction until more appropriate materials were provided and proceeded to send a letter to ABC, Mills, and the City of Brookings letting them know of the materials issue. She also included in her letters her concern for the structural integrity of the building, which later fell after an evening of approximately 35 mph winds (Kubasek et al., 2013, p. 453). In this case, the lower court left out “materials” when stating Mills had a breach of contract, causing Mills Construction to appeal. However, the appellate court believed that Mills breached the contract and that the materials breach was implicit, meaning that “materials” was implied, but not clearly stated (Kubasek et al., 2013). Stakeholders in the Miller case are of course the subcontractor, owners, and the City of Brookings. The subcontractor, Double Diamond, was impacted when the contract was breached and they no longer had work. Next, owners of the building and future owners of the company are impacted on an organizational and a monetary level. They are no longer on schedule causing many issues, and they are losing out on the money that could be made with the building being functional. And lastly, the City of Brookings was impacted with a loss of possible jobs, recreational use, and traffic through the city causing for a loss of possible business booms (Kubasek et al., 2013). An example of a breach of contract or materials breach could be me asking my husband to purchase a swiffer steam mop so that he can mop the floors when he gets home. A breach in contract would be my husband in fact purchasing the swiffer steam mop, however not mopping the floors when he got home. And a materials breach would be my husband choosing to purchase a walmart brand swiffer style mop to save money when we had a verbal contract of purchasing a swiffer steam mop.

Kubasek, N., Browne, M., Herron, D., Giampetro-Meyer, A., Barkacs, L., Dhooge, L., & Williamson, C. (2013). Dynamic Business Law (2nd ed.) [Connect digital version]. Retrieved from http://connect.mheducation.com/

• Show Me My Money (Reisenfeld & Company v. The Network Group Inc., p. 313)

Why does the court see this case as involving a quasi-contract as opposed to an actual contract? What other case law does the court rely on in finding precedent/support for compensating Reisenfeld? Does this decision appear to follow the golden rule guideline set forth in Chapter 2 (pp. 27 and 28)? Describe another example of an implied-in-fact or quasi-contract that you have experienced or is mentioned in the text.

Peer Response 2. I chose to research the Reisenfeld & Company v. The Network Group Inc. The definition of a quasi-contract is an obligation of one party to another imposed by law independently of an agreement between the parties (Investopedia.com, 2017). With this being said, Reisenfeld’s commission agreement with Network was that Reisenfeld would collect 1 buck per square foot if a deal was concluded between Dick’s Clothing and Sporting Goods and Builder’s Square, Inc. They did close on a deal and BSI stated that they would pay The Network and that The Network would then give Reisenfeld a portion of that commission. The reason it is a quasi-contract is because Reisenfeld made a separate written agreement between Network and Reisenfeld (courtlistener.com, 2017). BSI and The Network were in trials of their own against each other which resulted in Reisenfeld getting no commission at all. The courts in this case, rely on the subcontractor’s case law. In the subcontractor aspect of this case law, when the subcontractor is not paid by the contractor or the owner of the company, the subcontractor can seek payment from the owner under a theory of unjust enrichment (Kubasek et al., 2013).

The Golden Rule is one way of evaluating an ethical decision. The decision that the courts made does seem to follow the golden rule guideline, “Do unto others as you would have done to you”(Kabusek et al., 2013). Since both BSI and Reisenfeld were both negatively affected by the actions of Network, specifically BSI affected by Network and Reisenfeld affected by BSI, it was an unethical decision made by BSI to keep the funds that they owed Reisenfeld. Reisenfeld’s work benefited BSI greatly and BSI never had to pay anything to Network. Knowing that Reisenfeld was left high and dry, BSI still chose to not do anything about it.

Another example of a quasi-contract would be a person going to a mechanic shop to get their air conditioning on the car fixed. They sign a contract stating the mechanic will receive $200.00 for the job. While he is working on the air conditioning, he notices that the pulley system that runs the a/c for the car has a broken pulley so he fixes that as well. The customer comes in to pay the bill but it is now $300.00 instead of the initial $200.00. Since the pulley system is directly related to the a/c on the car, they enter into a quasi-contract and the person is expected to pay the additional $100.00 to fix the car even though that specific work was not in the initial contract.

References

Kubasek, N., Browne, M., Herron, D., Giampetro-Meyer, A., Barkacs, L., Dhooge, L., &

Williamson, C. (2013). Dynamic Business Law (2nd ed.) [Connect digital version]. Retrieved from http://connect.mheducation.com/

Reisenfeld & Co. v. The Network Group, Inc. Builders Square, Inc. K Mart Corp., 277

F.3d 856 – CourtListener.com. (n.d.). Retrieved June 01, 2017, from https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/776239/reise…

Staff, I. (2011, January 04). Quasi Contract. Retrieved June 01, 2017, from

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quasi-contract…

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Code "GET10" in your order"