BUS311_chapter_04

The match was postponed because of the injury of one

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: nephew accept the offer? Could he have accepted by promising to adopt a healthy lifestyle? 3. What was the uncle’s consideration? 4. What was the nephew’s consideration? rog80328_04_c04_062-088.indd 85 10/26/12 5:42 PM Section 4.5 Chapter Summary CHAPTER 4 Case Study: South Shore Amusements, Inc. v. Supersport Auto Racing Association 483 N.E.2d 337 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1985) Facts: Under a written contract between South Shore Amusements and Supersport Auto Racing, South Shore would lease the Raceway Park Motordrome (Raceway) from Supersport on September 24, 1974, to show a closed circuit telecast of a boxing match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. The match was postponed because of the injury of one of the contestants. When Brotman, the president of South Shore, learned about the delay of the match, he telephoned Jenin, the president of Supersport. According to Brotman, during this telephone conversation, Jenin orally agreed to make Raceway available to South Shore to show the telecast of the match on the rescheduled date. Supersport denied that such an agreement was made. In fact, on the rescheduled date the boxing match occurred, Raceway was closed for the season. In reliance on the alleged oral agreement, South Shore spent money in preparation to show the match and also lost approximately $60,000 in anticipated earnings from ticket sales. Additionally, Supersport failed to return South Shore’s $1,500 deposit and money received from ticket sales. South Shore sued Supersport for breach of contract, and the trial court ruled in favor of South Shore in the amount of $8,695, based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of Brotman, who was not only South Shore’s president but also its attorney. Supersport appealed the judgment. Issue: Was there a valid oral modification of the written contract? Discussion: The appellate court acknowledged that a written contract can be modified by a later oral agreement, but ruled that the trial court’s conclusion was completely against the weight of the ev...
View Full Document

This test prep was uploaded on 04/09/2014 for the course BUS 311 taught by Professor Parker during the Spring '10 term at Ashford University.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online