law101 question

Case A: Chapter 15 (8 and 9) and Chapter 16 (7) in Dynamic Business Law

For each assigned case, write an analysis of the issue based on the following criteria:

Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).

Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.

Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties). Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear.

Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.

Be prepared to defend your decision and to objectively evaluate the other points of view.

7. Roger Bannister was the director of technical and
product development for Bemis. Bannister entered
into a covenant not to compete with Bemis, which
prohibited Bannister from working for a Bemis
competitor for 18 months after the termination of his
employment. The covenant not to compete included
a provision which stated that Bemis was to pay
Bannister his monthly salary if he was unable to find
work due solely to the covenant not to compete, pro-
viding that he provide the relevant paperwork.
Bemis terminated Bannister’s employment.
Bannister’s counsel sent a letter to Bemis requesting
payment of his monthly salary under the covenant
not to compete because he was unemployed due
solely to the covenant not to compete. In this let-
ter, Bannister included a letter he had received from
Mondi, which informed him that Mondi would
hire him if not for the covenant not to compete.
Bannister sent a job contacts log to Bemis that380
Part 2 Contracts
detailed his job search and again requested that
Bemis start paying his monthly salary under the
covenant not to compete. Bemis responded by
allowing Bannister out of the covenant not to com-
pete, with the exception that he could not work for
Mondi because of a separate agreement Bemis had
with Mondi. Bannister responded by letter, stating
that the Bemis correspondence was the first notice
of his release to pursue employment with any com-
petitor other than Mondi and that he considered
the release a partial release because of the Mondi
exception. Bemis then confirmed in a letter that
Bannister could accept “employment with any com-
pany other than [Mondi]” and reiterated its position
that there were no damages due under the covenant
not to compete “based on the fact that Mr. Bannis-
ter has been released to seek employment with any
company other than [Mondi].”
Bannister accepted a position with Bancroft
Bag, Inc., a Bemis competitor. He brought a claim
against Bemis for its failure to pay his monthly
salary for the nine-month period during which he
I was out of work under the covenant not to com-
pete. The district court found in Bannister’s favor.
Bemis appealed. How did the appellate court rule,
and why? [Bannister v. Bemis Co., Inc., 556 F.3d
882 (2009).]How should the court ma
aning.
8. On February 1, 2004, Zhang entered into a contract
to buy former realtor Frank Sorichetti’s Las Vegas
home for $532,500. The contract listed a March
Chapter 15 Consideration
357
closing date and a few household furnishings as part
of the sale. On February 3, Sorichetti told Zhang
that he was terminating the sale “to stay in the
house a little longer” and that Nevada law allows
the rescission of real property purchase agreements
within three days of contracting. Sorichetti stated
that he would sell the home, however, if Zhang paid
more money. Zhang agreed. Another contract was
drafted, reciting a new sales price, $578,000. This
contract added to the included household furnish-
ings drapes that were not listed in the February 1
agreement, and it set an April, rather than March,
closing date. The primary issue before the court
was whether a real property purchase agreement is
enforceable when it is executed by the buyer only
because the seller would not perform under an ear-
lier purchase agreement for a lesser price. Should
the court enforce the second contract? Why or
why not? [Zhang v. The Eighth Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada, 103 P.3d 20 (Sup. Ct.
Nev. 2004).]
9. This appeal arises out of the trial court’s division
of property in a divorce case. Vincent Simmons
appeals from the trial court’s order awarding to
his wife, Dorothy Simmons, a one-half interest
in land that he had inherited from his parents.
Vincent contends that the land is nonmarital prop-
erty and, consequently, should have remained his
separate property. Vincent and Dorothy Simmons
were married in 1976. Vincent’s mother executed
a trust in order to convey the land in Florida to her
children, Vincent and his sister, upon her death.
Louise Simmons died on April 1, 1999, but the land
remained in trust for several years after her death.
After Louise died, Dorothy became concerned that
she would not receive an interest in the Florida
land if Vincent died before the trust was distrib-
uted, so she hired an attorney in Monticello, David
Chambers, to prepare a document to protect her
interest. In the document, Vincent states, in part, “It
is my intention, through this affidavit, to convey to
my said wife marital interest in said real property.
If I should die prior to the above-stated Trust being
dissolved, then my said wife shall receive my share
of said real property as her own property.” In 2003,
Dorothy filed for divorce. Vincent argued that there
was a total absence of consideration to support a
contract in this case. Dorothy argued that her ongo-
ing marriage to Vincent constituted adequate con-
sideration to support the contract. Who is correct?
Why? [Vincent Simmons v. Dorothy Simmons, 98
Ark. App. 12 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007).]
10. Five pees merica
Rower (AEP)
nconsid-
nd of
the
Servi Corp. ente np
eration f the sof O ollar
go and valu le cons ration
der eAssignor, ach en oyee
a emein
AEP exive pa righ
inve on. S
the empees s alle
that th was n
act beca AEP
the one lar. Ho
ou think
Explain you reasoni
Electric Powe Service
App. LEXIS 435 (Ohio
cou
nett et a
oration,
App. 2001).]
r pa
ed?
Amen
1 Ohro