of its predecessor in interest did not excuse the plaintiff from complying with

Of its predecessor in interest did not excuse the

This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 7 pages.

of its predecessor in interest did not excuse the plaintiff from complying with its obligationsunder the settlement agreement. The plaintiff (patentee) should afford the defendant same rights under the settlement agreement that it had possessed prior to the sale of the assets. Case 19-2 Forest Commodity Corp. v. Lone Star Industries, Inc., 255 GA. APP. 244 (2002).Case BriefIssue:a party’s failure to acknowledge a nondelegation agreement.Facts: Dispute arose between FCC and CAL over the amount of stone CAL shipped through the FCC facility. Procedural History:Trial court granted CAL’s motion for summary judgment on breach of contract claim. FCC was precluded from enforcing the contract because it failed to comply with the nonassignability clause.Holding: Affirmed.Reasoning:The irrefutable evidence points inevitably to the conclusion that an assignment of the CAL thru-put option was effected.FCC’s interests and obligations in the CAL thru-put agreement were transferred to WEC without CAL’s written consent, thereby violating the nonassignability clause of the agreement and extinguishing any right to recovery FCC may have had.Accountants’ testimony was important in determining what FCC and WEC actually did.Georgia courts may look to tax returns as probative evidence in ascertaining the existence of an assignment.FCC had an intent to assign.The trial court property found that FCC had assigned the CAL thru-put agreement to WEC.19-3
Background image
Chapter 19 - Third-Party Rights to ContractsAnswers to the questionsCritical ThinkingI agree with the courts in looking at tax returns to see which companies were actually doing the work. The result would have been different without this evidence, so companies like FCC have an interest in creating arguments about the extent to which courts can rely on tax returns.Ethical Decision MakingThe majority of the American public understands that tax returns provide a trail of evidence. I believe what happened here would pass the “public disclosure” test.Case 19-3 Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N.Y. 268 (1859).Case BriefIssue:Did Lawrence have a right to sue Fox for performance? Facts: Holly loaned Fox $300. Holly informed Fox that she owed Lawrence $300, due the next day. Foxagreed to pay Lawrence $300, for Holly, the next day. Fox did not pay. Lawrence sued Fox.Procedural History: The jury found in favor of Lawrence. Fox appealed. The judgment was affirmed. Fox appealed again.Holding: Fox lost again. Lawrence had a right to sue Fox for performance.Reasoning:Fox owes the sum of money demanded of him.Fox has the duty to pay the sum to Lawrence.Requiring Fox to pay is consistent with the idea of justice.Answers to the questionsCritical ThinkingThe ruling provides the basis of contract law. If a promise is made, it must be carried out, even if it is for another. When two parties make an agreement, both parties must hold up each end of the bargain. In this case, Fox did not, so Lawrence had the right to sue to enforce the agreement.
Background image
Image of page 5

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture