Question

Business law, please write a short court cases on cases below.

Stephen A. Wheat v. Sparks

J.T. ex rel. Thode v. Monster Mountain.

Clark’s Sales and Service v. Smith

Browning v. Poirer

Sogeti USA v. Scariano

Killian v. Ricchetti

Answer 1

Clark’s Sales and Service v. Smith

Smith joined as employee in Clark's office and signed an employment agreement which included a restrictive covenant/noncompetition provision. The trial court concluded that the restrictive covenant that Clark's drafted is overly broad and unreasonable, and therefore unenforceable.

Conclusion Smith won the case

Browning v. Poirer

Oral agreement between Browning and Poirier to share in the proceeds of a winning lottery ticket they purchased fell outside the statute of frauds because no time was fixed by the parties for the performance of the agreement.

Sogeti USA v. Scariano

Martinez signed an employment agreement that contained a noncompetition provision for the company he worked for, Arizona law is less concerned with the personal relationship between an employee and his employer and focuses on protecting employees from overreaching arrangements

Killian v. Ricchetti

The e-mails exchanged between Killian and Ricchetti do not form a contract because material terms changed between offer and counteroffer. Killian and Ricchetti negotiated back-in-forth in these e-mails but they never reach agreement on a single set of material terms. The e-mails exchanged between Killian and Ricchetti on February 19th and February 20th do form a contract but it could not be breached, as a matter of law, because the required condition never occurred

J.T. ex rel. Thode v. Monster Mountain

A. The minor did not sign the pre-injury waiver.

B. The pre-injury waiver that was signed by the minor's coach cannot bind the minor because the waiver was in favor of a for-profit entity.

C. The pre-injury waiver was invalid because the minor's coach instead of his parent or legal guardian signed it.

D. The pre-injury waiver did not contemplate the circumstances of the minor's injuries.

Summary: J.T. sued Monster Mountain alleging negligence, premises liability, and wantonness for its failure to remove the tractor from the track. Monster Mountain moved for summary judgment on the basis that the Release barred J.T.'s claim

Stephen A. Wheat v. Sparks

Facts of the case :

Wheat trust Sued Robert Sparks for fraud arising out of sale of sale of house to wheats

Trial Court Entered judgement in favour of Sparks and  

Evidences shows that on Aug14 2009 purchase agreement with Sparks to purchase a rhp in city of Decatur

Agreement incorporated Seller party Disclosure on 5/3/2009

Sparks Coveyed Property gainst sparks .there was a genuine issue of material fact as to their fraud claim to wheats on 17/9/2009 and Sparks also Signed owners affidavit

Upon taking title,Wheat transfred property Via "quitclaim Deed Spousal" to Ms Wheat and Wheat trust

In Disclosure Sparks disclosed that There were no boundary line disputes regarding the property,Sewage system was public,Exterior sewer line replaced with pVCin 2005,all watr line including service line replaced in 2006b

After some days wheat come to know that problem of sewerel lateral .while repairing it they found seweral lateral extened beyond their property including neighbours Gransdens and land owned by city of decatur.

So wheat contracted Eimmly marketer ,sparks real estate agent and that agent forwarded an eamil to wheat and sparks about previous problems and also a problem that it crosses Gardens (sic) property and spark replied saying that when he replaced he got permission from gransden and so wheat entered with Gransden and city Decatur.

In disclosure he mentioned hat there was water accumulation and during heavy rains Front corner becomes Damp  

Sparks were also aware of 3 major and minor leaks while the property in in market but he failed to mention them. He added that Rob made arragements for small repairs before the open house.

Wheat and trust made a claim for false basement, Because the Wheats have established a genuine issue of material fact as to their fraud claim regarding the basement water intrusion, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Sparks on that claim. ... The Wheats further assert that the trial court erred in finding that the Wheat Trust did not have standing