Case Briefs.Week3

Case Briefs.Week3 - Kelly Bowers 103679426 Case Briefs Week...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Kelly Bowers 103679426 Case Briefs Week 3 F ACTS : In 2001, Providence, RI (∆) conducted two training sessions (the 60 th and 61 st Police Academies). ∆ admitted potential needed police officers to these sessions based on their performance on a series of tests and an interview. Applicants who met these standards were written a letter of acceptance with the condition that they passed medical exams as well. The letter stated that it was a “conditional offer of employment.” During this time, a new police chief was hired. This new chief revised the rules and rejected 14 individuals who would have otherwise been accepted (including Derek Ardito, ∏). ∏ filed suit in a federal district claiming that ∆ breached a contract with the 14 individuals. I SSUE : Does the letter act as an offer to enter into a unilateral contract? R ULE OF L AW : Common Law A NALYSIS : ∆ clearly labeled their letter a “conditional offer of employment” unlike prior notices of information to applicants. ∆ accurately argues that there is no contract between the parties to ensure that ∏ would receive a place on the police force but that is not what ∏ is arguing. The contract that ∏ seek to enforce is not a contract that they will be appointed as permanent Providence police officers. Rather, that it is a contract that they would be admitted to the Academy. C ONCLUSION : The court issues an injunction to prohibit the city from conducting the 61 st Police Acadmey unless ∏ was included provided they passed their necessary health exams. F ACTS : University of Utah contracted with Fox Construction (∆) to build a sports facility. ∆ subcontracted with Gary Porter Construction (∏) to do excavation and soil placement work according to the specific sections of the project plan (“Included Sections”) for $146, 740. Later ∆ asked ∏ to do additional work that had not been included in the subcontract (“Excluded Sections”). ∏ did the work, ∆ did not pay additional compensation claiming the added work had been mistakenly excluded from the given amount. ∏ sued ∆ in UT alleging breach of implied contract, etc. I
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 12/08/2011 for the course MGMT 1A taught by Professor Litt during the Spring '08 term at UCLA.

Page1 / 3

Case Briefs.Week3 - Kelly Bowers 103679426 Case Briefs Week...

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