BLS 10 - Armstrong v. Rohm and Haas Company, Inc. Facts: o...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Armstrong v. Rohm and Haas Company, Inc. Facts : o Plaintiffs worked at a manufacturing plant closed by RH, which gave employees a choice: accept a severance package or transfer to another facility o Plant manager told plaintiffs to accept severance and begin a company, stating that RH “would like to” give plaintiffs “all [outsourced] work” o Plaintiffs followed manager’s suggestions, but there was little work since RH still outsourced elsewhere, so plaintiffs sued for breach of contract Court’s Decision : o Defendant’s alleged promise is too vague to ascertain a reasonably certain basis for providing an appropriate remedy Unclear what volume of work was to be performed How could court determine whether Armstrong and Pottle had performed their end of the bargain? Price paid for work? What if amount they could handled changed over time, as they gained experience? Not all of these issues are insurmountable for Armstrong and Pottle, taken seperately. The lack of definiteness is fatal because the court cannot supply these terms o RH’s alleged promise is therefore unenforceable as a matter of law Motion to dismiss granted in favor of RH. Ewanchuk v. Mitchell Facts: o Mitchell owned two red and white Boston Terriers. Mitchell posted an ad on the Internet proposing to sell the puppies. That same day, Ewanchuk responded to the ad expressing interest. o Mitchell called Ewanchuk that the puppies were eight weeks old an were going to be sold to a broker the following Monday unless Ewanchuk agreed to buy them. o Ewanchuk gave Mitchell her credit card number, which was used to charge the $600 payment. Despite the fact that they agreed on the price of the puppies, Ewanchuk and Mitchell were never able to agree on when and how the puppies would be delivered.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
o
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/27/2008 for the course BLS 111 taught by Professor Steflik during the Fall '07 term at Binghamton.

Page1 / 4

BLS 10 - Armstrong v. Rohm and Haas Company, Inc. Facts: o...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online