This is strange as hell, honestly. Both the claims against Sportsworld are related to unjust enrichment, but you're tempted to figure that dog won't hunt unless you're saying the benefit conferred was 900 worth of advertising (plus some incalculable advantage to their actual business), and there's no way a court holds that the only way to avoid injustice is to fix a nonparty's mistake by levying against the store that wasn't involved at all.As for Ed's v. Sportsland, there's a third party beneficiary issue here, but Sportsland couldn't have contemplated that Ed's would benefit from the K, and, in any event, Sportsland had satisfied its obligation to the party with whom it was in privity.I don't know what to tell you, dude. Other than, there's a male private part's right across Peachtree form Phipp's, so it's a wonder Lenox has got two sporting goods stores. I think this is a trick question.ETA: I should probably mention that my K class didn't cover third-party beneficiaries or outright fraud (as in, where a party plain absconds), so I could be missing some big stuff here.
Hey ya'llI was wondering if anyone can give me some insight as to the final part of this hypo from my k class. Thanks in advance.Specifically, the nature and extent of any claims SPORTSLAND has against SPORTSWORLDFact patternLarry owns SPORTSLAND, a sporting goods store located at Lenox ShoppingCenter. He entered into a contract with FRED'S AD AGENCY wherein Fred's agreed toarrange for an airplane to fly over Turner Field during a Braves/Mets baseball game on8/4/99 with a trailer reading: "QUALITY YOU CAN AFFORD - SPORTSLAND ATLENOX." Pursuant to the contract, Larry paid the ad agency $900 in advance. Fred'sthen contracted with ED'S FLYING ADS to fly the plane with the message over thestadium for $600.Larry went to the game on 8/4/99 and waited patiently to see the plane carryinghis message fly over the capacity crowd at the stadium. Finally, in the 8th inning, a planeflew over with a trailer reading: "QUALITY YOU CAN AFFORD - SPORTSWORLD ATLENOX." Sportsworld is another, competing, sporting goods store located at Lenox.FRED=S ad agency admitted it gave ED'S FLYING ADS the wrong name andpromised to refund Larry's $900. A few weeks later, ED'S called Larry and demanded$600 for flying the message over the stadium. Apparently, FRED'S had not paid ED'S ormost of its other creditors before closing its doors and skipping town. Needless to say,Larry never received his refund. Analyze the nature and extent of any claims ED'S hasagainst SPORTSLAND; that ED'S has against SPORTSWORLD; and thatSPORTSLAND has against SPORTSWORLD.Thanks
Ran through this hypo with my study partner before reading the responses. Basically came up with the same analysis as Reezy:Edís v. SportslandThird-Party Beneficiary: This might be a stretch. In construction contracts, when a subcontractor fails to file a mechanicís lien against the home owner (assuming the general contractor has also defaulted), subcontractors can resort to third-party beneficiary doctrine for recovery. Edís can argue that the contract between Sportsland and Fredís was intended to benefit Edís as a third-party subcontractor. This is likely an unavailing claim because Sportsland had no control over who Fredís selected as a subcontractor, and, possibly, did not even know that Fred would subcontract the work. If Edísí work had actually benefitted Sportsland, this claim would hold more water. Without more, though, it is weak.Edís v. SportsworldUnjust enrichment: likely unavailing claim because Edís had no direct relationship with Sportsworld. Edís is likely an officious intermeddler attempting to recover for unsolicited activities. Sportsland v. SportsworldI have nothing. Perhaps advise all parties to turn Fredís account over to Sallie Maeís collection agents.
Page created in 0.412 seconds with 17 queries.