Case Briefs.Week5

Case Briefs.Week5 - 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
XV.i Sawyer v. Mills XV.ii School-Link Technologies, Inc. v. Applied Resources, Inc. Kelly Bowers 103679426 Case Briefs Week 5 F ACTS : Sawyer (∏) was a paralegal in the office of Mills (∆). Since 94, ∆ offered an undetermined bonus to ∏ for her work. There was no real date established either other than “when the ship comes in.” After ∆’s law firm won a substantial settlement, ∏ and her husband met with ∆ and discussed the potential for this extra compensation. The husband secretly taped the conversation where, after some persuading, ∆ agreed to pay ∏ one million dollars plus an additional sixty-five thousand for a luxury car. The full amount was to be paid in monthly installments of ten thousand until the amount was paid in total. The two parties agreed to sign a written agreement which later, ∏ did and ∆ did not. ∆ paid out $165,000 in sporadic payments but then stopped. ∏ sued claiming that ∆ reneged on the promise to pay. ∆ filed for MSJ prior to trial stating that the statue of frauds barred the claim. The motion was denied an a jury awarded ∏ with the remaining nine hundred thousand. Mills filed a JNOV (judgment not withstanding verdict) again arguing on the statute of frauds. The court granted the motion. ∏ appealed saying the statute of frauds is not applicable. I SSUE : Does the statute of frauds apply to the Sawyer case? R ULE OF L AW : Statute of fraud A NALYSIS : Monthly payments of $10,000 would take 107 months to reach the agreed upon amount that was clearly state by ∏ and ∆ on the tape and layed out in the written agreement drafted by ∏’s attorney. This is well over the requisite one year. C ONCLUSION : The court affirmed the lower court’s JNOV. F ACTS : Applied Resources, Inc. (∆) makes computer hardware for point-of-sale systems – kiosks consisting of computers encases in chassis on which card readers or other payment devices are mounted. School-Link Technologies, Inc. (∏), sells food-service technology to schools. In August 2003, The NYC Department of Education asked ∏ to prose a cafeteria payment system that included kiosks. ∏ asked ∆ to participate in a pilot project, orally promising ∆ that it would be the exclusive supplied of as many as 1,500 kiosks if the NYCDOE awarded the contract to ∏. ∆ agreed. ∏ intended to cut ∆ out of the deal, however, and told the NYCDOE that ∏ would be making its own kiosks. Meanwhile, ∏ paid ∆ in advance for a certain number of goods but insisted on onerous terms for a written contract to which ∆ would not agree. ∆ suspended production of the prepaid items and refused to refund more than the $55,000 that ∏ had paid. ∏ filed suit in a federal district court against ∆. ∆ responded with a counterclaim for a breach of
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 / 4

Case Briefs.Week5 - 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