Reference no: EM131377951
Louie E. Brown worked for the Phelps Dodge Corporation under an oral contract for approximately twenty-three years. In 2007, he was suspended from work for unauthorized possession of company property.
In 2008, Phelps Dodge fired Brown after discovering that he was using company property without permission and building a trailer on company time. Brown sued Phelps Dodge for benefits under an unemployment benefit plan.
According to the plan, ‘‘in order to be eligible for unemployment benefits, a laid-off employee must:
(1) Have completed 2 or more years of continuous service with the company, and
(2) Have been laid off from work because the company had determined that work was not available for him.''
The trial court held that the wording of the second condition was ambiguous and should be construed against Phelps Dodge, the party who chose the wording.
A reading of the entire contract, however, indicates that the plan was not intended to apply to someone who was fired for cause. What is the correct interpretation of this contract?
|
Is the dairy correct in its assertion
: The dairy argues that the statute of frauds bars enforcement of the oral contract because the contract was not to be performed within one year. Is the dairy correct in its assertion?
|
|
Is the agreement binding
: Campbell now brings this action against Yokel for breach of contract upon Yokel's failure to deliver the soybeans. Is the agreement binding?
|
|
Explain the youth firearms violence initiative
: Explain the Youth Firearms Violence Initiative. Choose one of the strategies and tactics. Explain the program in depth and its effectiveness in reducing juvenile weapons crimes.
|
|
Explain is wilson correct
: Wilson argues that the statute of frauds governs this transaction and that because there was no writing, the contract claim is barred. Is Wilson correct? Explain.
|
|
What is the correct interpretation of this contract
: A reading of the entire contract, however, indicates that the plan was not intended to apply to someone who was fired for cause. What is the correct interpretation of this contract?
|
|
Summarize how shaw-mckay would account for the high crime
: Shaw and McKay developed their theory nearly 100 years ago. Do their arguments still apply today? What do the high crime neighborhoods look like now (versus early 1900s Chicago neighborhoods) and does this present any problems for their explanat..
|
|
Explain who is correct in given case
: Do not wish to sell property.'' Joiner now claims an oral modification of a contract within the statute of frauds is unenforceable. Katz counters that the modification is not material, and therefore does not affect the underlying contract. Explain..
|
|
Explain who gets the farm
: Donald says this was an oral agreement to sell land, and is unenforceable. The daughter says the letter satisfies the statute of frauds, making the contract enforceable. Who gets the farm? Explain.
|
|
Can ganley introduce into evidence oral representations
: The contract, however, provided: ‘‘The contractor [Ganley] has examined the said contracts ..., knows all the requirements, and is not relying upon any statement made by the company in respect thereto.'' Can Ganley introduce into evidence the oral..
|