Part 3- Contracts, Chapter 9: Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition, Doc 5

Here is a summary of each problem case with a focus on the legal issues and potential outcomes based on contract law principles: 1. Pass v. Shelby Aviation    Issue: Whether Shelby Aviation’s contract with Pass was primarily for services or goods under UCC Article 2. Analysis: Article 2 covers contracts for the sale of goods. Here, the primary service was inspection and repair, with only 37% of costs attributed to materials. Likely Outcome: Shelby Aviation could argue successfully that the contract was primarily service-oriented and thus outside the UCC’s scope, potentially dismissing the breach of warranty claim. 2. Jackson v. Connecticut Lottery Corporation    Issue: Whether Jackson could claim his lottery prize after the one-year period had expired. Analysis: The contract clearly required prize claims within one year; Jackson did not meet this deadline due to personal delay, not fault on CLC’s part. Likely Outcome: Contract law likely does not provide relief, and Jackson may not be entitled to the prize due to his failure to meet the contractual terms. 3. Holt v. Home Depot    Issue: Whether Home Depot’s employee handbook promise not to retaliate for complaints creates a promissory estoppel claim. Analysis: Holt relied on Home Depot’s promise and faced termination shortly after initiating a complaint. Likely Outcome: The jury’s finding for Holt on promissory estoppel was based on reasonable reliance and detriment, making Home Depot’s challenge less likely to succeed. 4. Gray Loon Marketing v. POA    Issue: Whether the UCC applies to a website development contract. Analysis: The contract primarily involved service work (website design), not the sale of goods. Likely Outcome: The UCC would not apply, as this was primarily a service contract, meaning Gray Loon would need to pursue remedies outside the UCC. 5. Chow v. TWA    Issue: Whether TWA’s assurances and failure to arrange for a connection despite a ticket disclaimer result in a valid claim. Analysis: Chow’s reliance on TWA’s assurances may support a claim for detrimental reliance, but the ticket’s disclaimer could be a strong defense. Likely Outcome: Chow might have a claim if he can argue promissory estoppel based on TWA’s assurances, but the airline’s disclaimer may still limit TWA’s liability. 6. Allyson v. Houston    Issue: Whether Allyson has a promissory estoppel claim based on her father’s repeated promises to pay for college expenses. Analysis: Allyson relied on her father’s promise, forgoing other opportunities, which may fulfill promissory estoppel requirements. Likely Outcome: Allyson may have a valid promissory estoppel claim, as she reasonably relied on her father’s promises to her detriment. 7. Gulashes v. Stylarama    Issue: Whether the UCC applies to a contract for a pool that included both goods (the pool itself) and services (installation). Analysis: If the primary purpose was providing a good (the pool), the UCC would apply; however, if installation was the primary aspect, it might not. Likely Outcome: If viewed as predominantly a sale of goods, the UCC applies, making the implied warranty claim valid. 8. EPIC v. Salt Lake County    Issue: Whether EPIC can claim quasi-contractual payment for medical services provided to inmates, despite the county denying liability. Analysis: Quasi-contract may apply if EPIC can demonstrate unjust enrichment on the county’s part from the medical services. Likely Outcome: EPIC may succeed in a quasi-contract claim if it shows that the county benefitted unjustly from its services. 9. Gall v. McKeesport Municipal Water Authority    Issue: Whether water is a "good" under the UCC for an implied warranty of merchantability claim. Analysis: Courts are split on whether water qualifies as a “good.” Some jurisdictions may classify it as such, while others may not. Likely Outcome: If water is not deemed a good, the UCC will not apply, potentially dismissing Gall’s warranty claim. 10. Schumacher v. Parents    Issue: Whether an oral contract for employment and inheritance is enforceable, or if unjust enrichment applies due to reliance on promises. Analysis: Contracts regarding property transfer often require written form under the Statute of Frauds. However, Schumacher’s reliance may invoke promissory estoppel or unjust enrichment. Likely Outcome: Schumacher may succeed under promissory estoppel if he can demonstrate reliance and injustice due to the breach, though the oral contract claim may fail due to Statute of Frauds requirements.