A. T. Still University Requirements
1- Requirements Contracts. Medalist Golf, Inc., a high-end golf course builder, was working on a new golf course project in Missouri. Chris Williams, doing business as Cane Creek Sod, submitted a bid with Medalist to provide Meyer Zoysia grass sod for the project. Williams and Medalist executed a “grass supplier agreement” that specified the type and quality of grass to be used, stated the price, and gave Medalist a right to inspect and reject the sod. The parties estimated the quantity of sod needed for the project to be twenty-one acres. Williams had approximately sixty-five acres of Meyer Zoysia growing at the time. The agreement did not specify the amount of sod that Medalist would purchase from Williams, nor did it say that Medalist would buy Williams’s sod exclusively. Later, when Medalist had an expert inspect William’s sod (before it was harvested), the expert concluded that it did not meet the quality standards required for the project. Medalist therefore rejected the sod. Williams sued for breach of contract. Was the “grass supplier agreement” enforceable as a requirements contract? Why or why not? [Williams v. Medalist Golf, Inc., F.Supp.3d , 2018 WL 1046889 (E.D.Mo. 2018)] (See The Formation of Sales and Lease Contracts.)
2- Implied Warranties. Harold Moore bought a barrel-racing horse named Clear Boggy for $100,000 for his daughter from Betty Roper, who appraises barrel-racing horses. (Barrel racing is a rodeo event in which a horse and rider attempt to complete a cloverleaf pattern around preset barrels in the fastest time.) Clear Boggy was promoted for sale as a competitive barrel-racing horse. On inquiry, Roper represented that Clear Boggy did not have any performance issues or medical problems, and that the only medications the horse had been given were hock injections, a common treatment.
Answer:
Shortly after the sale, Clear Boggy developed a limp and was diagnosed with a condition that made her unfit for barrel racing. Moore sued Roper for breach of warranty, alleging that Roper had made an implied warranty that the horse was fit for the purpose for which she was sold. Roper argued that no such warranty existed. Who is right? Explain. [Moore v. Roper, 434 S.W.3d 349 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014)] (See Warranties.)
3- Contract Performance. The Cessna Aircraft Company contracted with AeroTech Services to perform maintenance on a Cessna 421C aircraft. The contract specified that AeroTech would perform a phase one inspection, a phase two inspection, and a series of additional services on the aircraft. AeroTech completed the work and returned the aircraft to Cessna, which subsequently sold it to a third party. After the sale, the third party discovered that the aircraft’s left engine was inoperable due to a missing starter cable. The third party sued Cessna, alleging that it had breached its contract with AeroTech by failing to ensure that all work specified in the contract had been completed. Cessna argued that it had no liability because it had no notice of the missing starter cable and had not caused the problem. Who is right? Explain. [Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Aircraft Network, LLC, 102 So.3d 1028 (Ala. 2012)] (See Contract Performance.)
4- Employment at Will. Rachel Atkinson worked as a marketing executive for Foremost Enterprises, a manufacturer of household appliances. Atkinson had signed an employment agreement that stated that her employment was “at-will” and could be terminated by either party at any time. After working for Foremost for five years, Atkinson began to feel uncomfortable with the company’s marketing practices, which she believed were unethical. She raised her concerns with her supervisor, but was told to continue with business as usual. A few weeks later, Atkinson was terminated. She sued Foremost for wrongful termination, arguing that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints about the company’s marketing practices. Foremost argued that it had the right to terminate Atkinson’s employment for any reason or no reason at all. Who is right? Explain. [Atkinson v. Foremost Enterprises, Inc., 238 Cal.App.4th 558 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)] (See Employment at Will.)
5- Tort Liability. At a high school basketball game, a spectator threw a water bottle at a referee who had just made a controversial call. The water bottle missed the referee and hit another spectator, causing serious injury. The injured spectator sued the school district that operated the high school, arguing that the district was liable for the harm caused by the spectator’s actions. The district argued that it had no control over the actions of spectators and could not be held liable for the actions of a third party. Who is right? Explain. [Hegel v. Kannapolis City Bd. of Educ., 446 F.Supp.2d 517 (W.D.N.C. 2006)] (See Tort Liability.)
6- Products Liability. Jennifer Johnson was injured when a power tool she was using malfunctioned and caused a severe laceration to her hand. Johnson sued the manufacturer of the power tool, arguing that the tool was defective and that the manufacturer was liable for her injuries. The manufacturer argued that the tool had been used improperly and that Johnson had assumed the risk of injury by using the tool. Who is right? Explain. [Johnson v. Power Tool Co., 532 N.E.2d 1021 (Ill. App
