BUS415 Foodmart, Inc. Paper - Copy

BUS415 Foodmart, Inc. Paper - Copy - Foodmart Inc Paper 1...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Foodmart, Inc. Paper 1 Foodmart Inc. Paper BUS/415 Foodmart, Inc. Paper In the following scenarios of situations that may have happened in Foodmart, Inc a grocery chain in the United States. Team B will give each of the scenarios a brief description of the situation and evaluate each and show how to deal with them in a lawful matter. Each scenario will be explained, to who the defendants are to the plaintiff’s charges and the possible outcomes of each.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Foodmart, Inc. Paper 1 Scenario #1: Foodmart, Inc. Contract with Masterpiece Construction Foodmart, Inc. petitioned the court for an injunction and sued Masterpiece Construction for breach of contract and specific performance because Masterpiece subcontracted the job to, Build Them to Fall Construction. Foodmart was unaware of the change and only realized it do to the poor quality of work done on the renovation project for its Main Street location. Masterpiece argued that due to an increase in new contracts the six month time limit to complete the renovation was not possible and that the company had the right to delegate the duties of the contract or discharge the contract due to commercial impracticability. In this case Foodmart, Inc. would win the suit because Masterpiece Construction entered a contract stating that within six months renovations for Foodmart’s Main Street location would be completed, which this promise is a covenant or unconditional promise to perform (Cheeseman, 2010). Cheeseman (2010) states that nonperformance of a covenant is a breach contract that gives the other party the right to sue. Because Foodmart did not include a condition subsequent, which automatically excuses the performance of an existing contractual duty to perform (Cheeseman, 2010), Masterpiece can be held liable instead of Build Them to Fall. Furthermore, Masterpiece’s decision to discharge the contract was unwarranted for two reasons:1) there was no mutual agreement for the substitution and 2) the impracticability must show that the objective could not be done. To delegate the duties of the contract to a third party Foodmart, Masterpiece, and Build Them to Fall must agree to the substitution also know as a novation agreement, which would relieve Masterpiece of liability on the contract (Cheeseman, 2010). In addition to the impossibility of performance on the contract needed to be objective (the renovations cannot be done) and not subjective (the company cannot do the renovations)
Background image of page 2
Foodmart, Inc. Paper 1 (Cheeseman, 2010). Foodmart has the right to treat the contract as being in effect and sue to recover damages based on the fact that Masterpiece displayed a material breach of contract by rendering inferior performance of contractual obligations that impaired the essence of the
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 / 8

BUS415 Foodmart, Inc. Paper - Copy - Foodmart Inc Paper 1...

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