B-Law Unit 2

B-Law Unit 2 - Legal Environment of Business Test 2 Study...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Study Guide Summary of Taylor V. Gill- Kenny Willis and the Taylors live in the same neighborhood in Stuttgart. They would occasionally help each other with various things. On April 16, 1994, a day when Rick Taylor was out of town, Kenny Willis began mowing the Taylor’s yard. He was not asked to do so, but was merely doing this as a favor. Joyce Taylor, who was at work when Willis began to mow, returned while Willis was in the process of mowing the yard. She did not ask him to stop. While Willis was mowing in a ditch, the lawnmower hit a rock or piece of gravel, which shot out from the side of the mower and struck plaintiff Jackie Gill in the eye. Gill lost partial use of his eye. Gill sued Kenny Willis as well as the Taylors. His case against the Taylors was based upon the contention that Willis was acting as the Taylor’s agent at the time he was mowing the grass. He also alleged that Willis operated the mower in a negligent fashion by operating it in an area where gravel and rocks were located. The jury found that Willis was operating the mower negligently, and that he was acting as an agent of the Taylors, and that there was joint and several liability between Willis and the Taylors for damages to Gill, assessed at $40,000. In sum, we see a marked difference between the authority of Joyce Taylor to stop Willis from doing the work altogether, which she most certainly could have done, and her authority to control the exact manner in which Willis went about his task. We observe no proof that the Taylors intended to micro manage, or could have micro managed, how Willis actually accomplished his work. Nor do we glean from the record that Willis would have subjected himself to such control in performing this favor. The Judgement was reversed. Summary of Smith V. Russ- The purchaser of an automobile sued Tim Smith and Shelby Arrington for breach of contract, alleging that he was required to return a recently purchased car due to the fact that it turned out to be stolen. Plaintiff included in his claim a demand for consequential damages, alleging that since he was deprived of the use of the car he was unable to deliver pizzas (which his job required), and thus he was demoted from delivery driver to cook, resulting in lost tips and wages. The jury ruled in the plaintiff’s favor, and included an award of $10,395 for lost tips and wages. This portion of the jury verdict was appealed to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The Arkansas court of appeals then concluded that the court erred in awarding plaintiff lost tips and wages. “Consequential damages resulting from the seller’s breach include. .. any loss resulting from general or particular requirements and needs of which the seller at the time of contracting had reason to know and which could not reasonably be prevented by cover or otherwise.” UCC 2-715. Plaintiff never presented evidence that , at the time of contracting, defendants had reason to know the particular needs of plaintiff. Thus, we reverse
Background image of page 1

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

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

This note was uploaded on 08/08/2011 for the course WCOB 1023 taught by Professor Sandeepgoyal during the Spring '08 term at Arkansas.

Page1 / 18

B-Law Unit 2 - Legal Environment of Business Test 2 Study...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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