Bohac v. Department of Agriculture case brief

Bohac v. Department of Agriculture case brief summary
239 F.3d 1334 (2001)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Petitioner successfully appealed her removal from a research geneticist position with respondent federal agency under the Whistleblower Protection Act. She filed a motion for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses. The Merit Systems Protection Board upheld an administrative law judge's decision denying non-pecuniary losses. Petitioner sought review of that decision.

CASE FACTS
Petitioner sought non-pecuniary damages for physical and emotional suffering, damage to her professional and personal reputation, and damages for various injuries to her family life.

DISCUSSION

• The court concluded that the term "changes" in 5 U.S.C.S. § 1221(g)(1)(A)(ii), was to be construed as "damages" because the reference to "changes" was obviously a mistake and the term "damages" was referenced in the legislative history. 
• The term "consequential damages" as used in 5 U.S.C.S. § 1221(g) was limited to reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs and did not include non-pecuniary damages because a whistleblowing claim did not fit into the categories of cases awarding mental suffering for a breach of contract and the term did not have a well-defined common law meaning in the more applicable wrongful discharge context. If 
• Congress had intended to allow broad recovery for non-pecuniary damages, it would have used a term more consistent with that intent, such as compensatory damages. 
• Moreover, non-pecuniary damages were not similar to the types of damages listed in § 1221(g)(1)(A)(ii). Finally, the legislative history made no mention of compensatory or other non-pecuniary damages.

CONCLUSION
Decision was affirmed because term "consequential damages" as used in Whistleblower Protection Act was limited to reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs and did not include non-pecuniary damages.


Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law

Shop for Law School Course Materials.

Billman v. Hensel case brief

Billman v. Hensel case brief summary
391 N.E.2d 671 (1979)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appellant buyers challenged a judgment of the Allen Superior Court, Small Claims Division (Indiana) entered against them and in favor of appellee sellers in the sellers' action for specific performance of a contract to sell a house to the buyers.

CASE FACTS
The sellers contracted to sell their home to the buyers. A condition of the contract was the ability of the buyers to secure a conventional mortgage on the property for not less than $ 35,000 within 30 days. When the buyers did not complete the purchase, the sellers commenced an action to secure a $ 1,000 earnest money/liquidated damage deposit required by the contract. The buyers defended upon the basis that they were relieved from performing in that they could not obtain financing. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the sellers.

DISCUSSION

• The court affirmed, holding that the buyers were not excused from performance. 
• The "subject to financing" clause imposed upon the buyers an implied obligation to make a reasonable and good faith effort to satisfy the condition. 
• The evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that the sellers carried their burden of proof by establishing that the buyers had not made a reasonable and good faith effort to secure the necessary financing and, therefore, could not rely upon the condition to relieve their duty to perform.

CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the sellers.

Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law

Shop for Law School Course Materials.

Bernstein v. Nemeyer case brief

Bernstein v. Nemeyer case brief summary
570 A.2d 164 (1990)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Plaintiff limited partners filed suit against defendant general partners for breach of contract, willful misconduct, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, specificallyConn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b. The Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, Connecticut, entered judgment for the general partners on those claims and for the limited partners on the general partners' counterclaim. The limited partners appealed.

CASE FACTS
The general partners and a group of investors formed a partnership to purchase and renovate apartment complexes, then solicited the limited partners to join the partnership. The general partners gave a negative cash flow guaranty to the partnership, under which it lent the partnership $ 3,000,000. Eventually the general partners discontinued mortgage payments, the properties were foreclosed on, and the general and limited partners lost their entire investments. The limited partners claimed that they had a right to rescission and restitution for the general partners' breach of the guaranty. The general partners claimed that their breach was not material and that their losses precluded unjust enrichment.

DISCUSSION

• The court held that the trial court's finding that the guaranty was an incidental term of the contract was clearly erroneous. 
• However, the limited partners did not prove a right to restitution of their investment. 
• The limited partners could not place the other party in the same situation as prior to the execution of the contract, a condition for restitution, and did not prove that the general partners were unjustly enriched.

CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the entry of judgment for the general partners on the limited partners' claims.


Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law

Shop for Law School Course Materials.

Ayer v. Western Union Telegraph Co. case brief

Ayer v. Western Union Telegraph Co. case brief summary
10 A. 495 (1887)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Plaintiff lumber dealer filed an action against defendant telegraph company to recover damages for the negligent transmission of a telegraphic message.

CASE FACTS
The telegraph company misstated the price at which the lumber dealer offered to sell certain laths. Pursuant to a stipulation printed on the telegraph paper, senders agreed that the company would not be liable for mistakes in transmission for messages that were not telegraphed back to the sender for comparison with the original. The instant message was not telegraphed back. The receiver accepted at the lower price. The dealer shipped the lathes and filed suit against the company for the damages resulting from the negligent transmission, claiming that it was entitled to the difference between the market price of the laths and the price at which they were shipped.

DISCUSSION

• The court entered a judgment for the dealer, noting that the company offered no evidence regarding the mistake and that a presumption arose that the mistake resulted from the fault of the company. 
• Also, the stipulation in the contract of transmission was void as against public policy. 
• Further, the court held that a valid contract resulted from the transmission and that the dealer was, as claimed, entitled to the difference between the market price of the laths and the price at which they were shipped.

CONCLUSION
The court rendered a judgment for the lumber dealer.


Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law

Shop for Law School Course Materials.

AMF, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp. case brief

AMF, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp. case brief summary
536 F.2d 1167 (1976)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appellant cash register company sought review of a decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which dismissed appellant's complaints against appellee restaurant chain regarding a contract for the purchase of cash registers.

CASE FACTS
Appellant cash register company sought review of a decision, which dismissed appellant's complaints against appellee restaurant chain regarding a contract for the purchase of cash registers.

DISCUSSION

• The court affirmed and held that appellee had entered into contracts for 23 cash registers, but that appellant was not able to perform its obligations under the contracts. 
• The court concluded that under U.C.C. § 2-610, appellee justifiably repudiated the contracts to purchase all 23 cash registers. 
• The court found that appellee was warranted in repudiating the contracts and, therefore, had a right to cancel the orders by virtue of U.C.C. § 2-711.

CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the dismissal of an action by appellant cash register company against appellee restaurant chain because appellee justifiably repudiated the contract for cash registers as appellant could not perform under the contract.

Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law

Shop for Law School Course Materials.

American Mechanical Corp. v. Union Machine Co. of Lynn, Inc. case brief

American Mechanical Corp. v. Union Machine Co. of Lynn, Inc. case brief summary
21 Mass.App.Ct. 97 (1985)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Plaintiff seller appealed a judgment of the Essex Superior Court Department (Massachusetts), awarding only nominal damages to the seller on its breach of contract claim against defendants, a prospective purchaser and its president, and dismissing the seller's claim of unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2.

CASE FACTS
The seller of commercial real estate, machinery, and equipment sought damages from a prospective purchaser after the sale fell through. The seller alleged breach of contract and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 93A.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The trial judge concluded that, although there was a breach of contract, the right to recover damages beyond nominal damages had not been proved, and that, in the absence of proof of a demand letter, ch. 93A recovery could only be had under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 11, which had not been pleaded.

DISCUSSION

• The court vacated the trial court's judgment and held that the correct measure of damages was the full amount of the actual loss, which was the contract price less the amount received for the property at a foreclosure sale of the real estate, machinery, and equipment. 
• The court held that the purchaser did not meet its burden of proving that losses could have been avoided by reasonable effort and that there was no basis for reducing the damages. 
• The court also stated that dismissal of the ch. 93A claim was improper. 
• The court found evidence that warranted a finding of unfair and deceptive practices and held that recovery was not conditioned upon the sending of a demand letter.

CONCLUSION
The court vacated the trial court's judgment and directed that a judgment should be entered for the seller for its actual losses on the breach of contract claim. The court remanded for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and entry of judgment on the claim of unfair and deceptive practices.

Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law

Shop for Law School Course Materials.

American Broadcasting Companies v. Wolf case brief

American Broadcasting Companies v. Wolf case brief summary
420 N.E.2d 363 (1981)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Plaintiff broadcasting company appealed the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (New York) dismissing plaintiff's complaint for an injunction against defendant sports reporter in a breach of contract case.

CASE FACTS
Plaintiff broadcasting company sued defendant sports reporter for breach of a contract clause calling for good faith negotiations and sought to enjoin defendant from working for a competitor.

DISCUSSION

• The court affirmed the denial of an injunction. 
• The court held that defendant had breached the clause but that an injunction would not lie for simple breach of personal services contract after defendant was no longer obligated to provide services, absent a covenant not to compete, or other factor such as the need to protect trade secrets. 
• The court noted that the law generally disfavored anticompetitive covenants in contracts, that such covenants were rarely implied in law, and an injunction would operate to apply a disfavored policy. 
• The court refused to grant an injunction that would unduly interfere with defendant's livelihood and inhibit free competition where there was no corresponding injury to plaintiff other than the loss of a competitive edge.

CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment for defendant sports reporter because his simple breach of contract, absent a covenant not to compete, or threat of tortious conduct, did not warrant injunction against defendant's employment with plaintiff's competitor after expiration of term of parties' contract, in derogation of policy disfavoring anticompetitive covenants.

Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law

Shop for Law School Course Materials.

All-Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway Corp. case brief

All-Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway Corp. case brief summary
174 F.3d 862 (1999)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Plaintiff telecommunications corporation appealed the judgment from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which granted summary judgment to defendant marketer on plaintiff's claims of intentional and negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel.

CASE FACTS
Plaintiff telecommunications sued defendant marketer for intentional and negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel after defendant made research claims for a new product. After the trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, plaintiff appealed.

DISCUSSION

• On appeal, the court noted that the parties had a contract covering the relationship in the course and within the scope of which the alleged warranty of thorough research was made. 
• The court affirmed the ruling for defendant because alleged misrepresentations were either puffing or meaningless sales patter. 
• The court could not think of any reason for using the doctrine of promissory estoppel to resuscitate plaintiff's claim.

CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the ruling for defendant because the alleged misrepresentations were either puffing or meaningless sales patter.

Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Property Law

Shop for Law School Course Materials.