100%(7)7 out of 7 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 6 pages.
Ch. 12Vanegas (plaintiff) v. American Energy Services (defendant): Illusory PromisesAES allegedly promised to pay any remaining original employees five percent of the proceeds when AES was sold. Assuming AES did make such an offer, the seven remaining employees accepted the offer by staying with AES until the sale. AES moved for summary judgment on [the ground] that the agreement was illusory and therefore not enforceableThe trial court granted AES's motion for summary judgment.The employees appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the alleged unilateral contract failed because it was not supported by at least one non-illusory promise.The employees petitioned this Court for review, which we granted.Regardless of whether the promise was illusory at the time it was made, the promise became enforceable upon the employees' performance. The court of appeals erred in holding otherwise. Accordingly, the SC of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.Denney (plaintiff) v. Reppert (defendant): Preexisting ObligationDenney trying to receive the reward money for catching bank robbers. It is manifest from the record that Reppert is the only claimant qualified and eligible to receive the reward.The judgment of the circuit court that he is entitled to receive payment of the $1,500.00 reward now deposited with the clerk of this court.The judgment is affirmed by the Court of Appeals of KentuckyNew England Rock Services, Inc. (plaintiff) v. Empire Paving, Inc. (defendants) (appellant): Modification of a Preexisting ContractEmpire Paving, Inc. appeal from the judgment of the trial court awarding damages to New England Rock Services, Inc. under a contract between the parties.The trial court awarded Rock Services damages in the amount of $58,686.63, plus interest and costs.Empire appealed claiming that the trial court improperly found that the later purchase order was a valid and enforceable modification of the earlier contract. Specifically, Empire claims that the later agreement lacked the requisite consideration to be a valid and enforceable modification of the earlier contract. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed by the Appellate Court of Connecticut
Ch. 13Alcoa Concrete & Masonry (appellant) (subcontractor) v. Stalker Bros (appellee) (general contractor): Licensing StatutesAt issue is whether the general contractor is contractually obligated to pay the subcontractor who was not licensed until the suit was brought. Alcoa claims $53,000 in invoices unpaid plus interest and attorney’s fees. Alcoa initiated this action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.