| Ever-Tite Roofing Corporation v. Green | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Louisiana Court of Appeals |
| Decided | 1955 |
| Citation(s) | 83 So. 2d 449 (Louisiana, 1955) |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Justice Ayres |
| Keywords | |
| breach of contract, abrogation, notice | |
Ever-Tite Roofing Corporation v. Green 83 So. 2d 449 (Louisiana, 1955) is an American contract law case. It is commonly taught to first year law students. [1]
The Texas-based roofing company had made an agreement with the Greens, a family in neighboring Louisiana, to re-roof their house. The contract had a provision that it would not go into effect until commencement of performing the work. There was some delay between the signing of the agreement and the start of work because the work was being done on credit and the roofing company had to get the Greens' credit checked. Once their credit was deemed worthy, the roofers loaded up their trucks and drove from their base in Shreveport, Louisiana to Webster Parish, Louisiana where the Greens lived. Upon arriving, the roofers found that another roofing company was already doing the job. The Greens forbade Ever-Tite from doing the job as agreed. Having not been made aware of this, nor had the Greens communicated a desire to cancel the agreement, the roofing company sued for the cost of driving to the property and lost profit. [2] [3] [4]
The Trial Court ruled for the Greens, also awarding attorney's fees to them, and the roofing company appealed. [2]
The appellate Court focused on whether the agreement had gone into force and become a contract. Relying on the Restatement of Contracts, the Court noted that "the power to create a contract by acceptance of an offer terminates at the time specified in the offer, or, if no time is specified, at the end of a reasonable time". Since the agreement had no specified time, the Court then went about deciding whether the actual time had been reasonable. Since the delays in processing the Green's credit check were not unusual, there was still time to accept the offer. Defendants argued that the work was never commenced, since the roofers never actually started roofing the house. The Court however ruled that the work had actually commenced the moment the roofing company loaded its trucks, and that the contract went into force in that moment. Since there was a contract in place when the Greens refused to let the roofers from doing the job, there was a breach of contract. Thus the Appellate Court reversed the findings of the lower court and ruled for the plaintiffs. Damages were awarded to the sum of $85.37 for the cost of loading and driving to the property, and $226 in lost profits. No attorney's fees were awarded though, as their contract made no mention of the assignment of such fees: another reversal of the lower court. [2] [3] [4]
Buchwald vs. Paramount (1990), 1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 634, was a breach of contract lawsuit filed and decided in California in which humorist and writer Art Buchwald alleged that Paramount Pictures stole his script idea and turned it into the 1988 movie Coming to America. Buchwald won the lawsuit and was awarded damages, and then accepted a settlement from Paramount before any appeal took place.
An employment contract or contract of employment is a kind of contract used in labour law to attribute rights and responsibilities between parties to a bargain. The contract is between an "employee" and an "employer". It has arisen out of the old master-servant law, used before the 20th century. Employment contracts relies on the concept of authority, in which the employee agrees to accept the authority of the employer and in exchange, the employer agrees to pay the employee a stated wage.
A contingent fee is any fee for services provided where the fee is payable only if there is a favourable result. Although such a fee may be used in many fields, it is particularly well associated with legal practice.
Liquidated damages, also referred to as liquidated and ascertained damages (LADs), are damages whose amount the parties designate during the formation of a contract for the injured party to collect as compensation upon a specific breach. This is most applicable where the damages are intangible, such as a failure by the contractor on a public project to fulfill minority business subcontracting quotas.
Attorney's fee is a chiefly United States term for compensation for legal services performed by an attorney for a client, in or out of court. It may be an hourly, flat-rate or contingent fee. Recent studies suggest that when lawyers charge a flat-fee rather than billing by the hour, they work less hard on behalf of clients and clients get worse outcomes. Attorney fees are separate from fines, compensatory and punitive damages, and from court costs in a legal case. Under the "American rule", attorney fees are usually not paid by the losing party to the winning party in a case, except pursuant to specific statutory or contractual rights.
An implied-in-fact contract is a form of an implied contract formed by non-verbal conduct, rather than by explicit words. The United States Supreme Court has defined "an agreement 'implied in fact'" as "founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding."
Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214 (1917), is a New York state contract case in which the New York Court of Appeals held Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, to a contract that assigned the sole right to market her name to her advertising agent.
In contract law, a non-compete clause, restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party. Some courts refer to these as "restrictive covenants". As a contract provision, a CNC is bound by traditional contract requirements including the consideration doctrine.
A severance package is pay and benefits that employees may be entitled to receive when they leave employment at a company unwillfully. In addition to their remaining regular pay, it may include some of the following:
Restraints of trade is a common law doctrine relating to the enforceability of contractual restrictions on freedom to conduct business. It is a precursor of modern competition law. In an old leading case of Mitchel v Reynolds (1711) Lord Smith LC said,
it is the privilege of a trader in a free country, in all matters not contrary to law, to regulate his own mode of carrying it on according to his own discretion and choice. If the law has regulated or restrained his mode of doing this, the law must be obeyed. But no power short of the general law ought to restrain his free discretion.
The UK default charges controversy was an issue in consumer law, relating to the level of fees charged by banks and credit card companies for late or dishonoured payments, exceeding credit limits, etc.
The New Zealand Employment Relations Act 2000 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand. It was substantially amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2001 and by the ERAA 2004.
The law of the Republic of China as applied in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu is based on civil law with its origins in the modern Japanese and German legal systems. The main body of laws are codified into the Six Codes:
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 prescribes the law relating to contracts in India and is the key act regulating Indian contract law. The Act is based on the principles of English Common Law. It is applicable to all the states of India. It determines the circumstances in which promises made by the parties to a contract shall be legally binding. Under Section 2(h), the Indian Contract Act defines a contract as an agreement enforceable by Law.
Implied terms in English law are default rules for contracts on points where the terms which contracting parties expressly choose are silent, or mandatory rules which operate to override terms that the parties may have themselves chosen. The purpose of implied terms is often to supplement a contractual agreement in the interest of making the deal effective for the purpose of business, to achieve fairness between the parties or to relieve hardship.
Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970 is an appeal filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Initially, Lasercomb filed an action against Holiday Steel for breach of contract, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, unfair competition, and false designation of origin. The United States District Court ruled in favor of Lasercomb, awarding them punitive damages and actual damages for fraud, rejecting the defense of copyright misuse. On appeal, based on a recognition of the similarity to patent misuse, the holding was reversed, deeming the language contained in the license agreement unreasonable.
Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration is an important case in the South African law of contract, heard in the Appellate Division from 18 to 21 February 1974, and decided on 20 May. The case concerned a contract to build a portion of a national road, into which contract an exceptional number of variations was introduced. The result was disruption. Because the contract had not lapsed, the court determined that there was no new agreement in terms of which the contractor was entitled to reasonable remuneration instead of the contract price, and there was no implied term stipulating that the owner must introduce the variations "at reasonable times."
 | This article needs additional or more specific categories .(June 2023) |