Groceryinc - Grocery Inc. 1 Grocery Inc. Team D University...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Grocery Inc. 1 Grocery Inc. Team D University of Phoenix Grocery Inc.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Grocery Inc. 2 Legal Team D has been requested to review the recent legal issues presented by Grocery Inc., contractors of Grocery Inc, and employees of Grocery Inc. Each case is tied to contract law but has individual circumstances, thus requiring a separate analysis to be performed on each case independently. The purpose of this document is to provide is for each case determine the legal aspects, potential outcome, and possible remedies. In doing so the team will need to compare and contrast contractual liability and determine the validity of the contracts terms and conditions stated in each case. Case 1 – Grocery Inc. Vs Masterpiece Construction To perform renovations to Grocery Inc., a legal binding, contract was agreed to between Grocery Inc. and Masterpiece Builders that include specific terms and conditions stating, type of work to be performed, and period of performance. Masterpiece evaluated the current backlog of the company and determined that man-power loading constraints prevented Masterpiece from executed the terms and conditions stated in the contract with Grocery Inc. to completed the renovation to Grocery, Inc. in the specified timeframe. To meet the contract requirement for period of performance, Masterpiece subcontracted the work for the renovation to Build Them to Fall. Acting on behalf of Masterpiece, Build Them to Fall began the work to renovate Grocery, Inc. During the performance period Grocery identified quality issues with the work being done by Build Them to Fall and realized that Masterpiece was not doing the renovation. Because of the quality issues, Grocery Inc petitioned for an injunction, and filed a suit for breach of contract against Masterpiece. Grocery’s request for specific performance is burdensome because Masterpiece does not have enough labor to complete the contract for Grocery, Inc., thus creating a hardship for Masterpiece. The personal service contract is the main reason the courts would not grant such a
Background image of page 2
Grocery Inc. 3 request because the “courts would find it difficult or impracticable to supervise or monitor performance of the contract” (Cheeseman, 2004, p. 311). Masterpiece attempts to escape responsibility for the improper workmanship by formulating two arguments; these arguments include (a) commercial impracticability and (b) the right to delegate duties. Unless the original contract stipulated no delegation of duties by another company, Masterpiece is within its contractual rights to seek help from Build Them to Fall; however, the inferior workmanship from Build causes an issue with Grocery because of the difference in building styles. Grocery is within its rights to contest the argument delegation of duties because the duties provided by Masterpiece to Grocery “would materially vary if the obligor’s duties were delegated” (p. 286), meaning the work performed by Masterpiece is not comparable to other companies. The poor performance by Build reflects on the credibility of
Background image of page 3

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 9

Groceryinc - Grocery Inc. 1 Grocery Inc. Team D University...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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