Solution
David answered on
Dec 23 2021
Running Head: BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS 1
9. Stephen Gall and his family became ill after drinking contaminated water
supplied to their home bythe McKeesport Municipal Water Authority. Theyfiled
suit against the utility, arguing, among otherthings, that the utility had
eached the
UCC implied wa
anty of merchantability when it sold them contaminated water.
The utility moved to dismiss theircomplaint, arguing that since water was not
“goods,”the UCC did not apply. Should the Galls‟ complaintbe dismissed?
Answer:
No, because water has been the tangible good that is movable. Goods have been
defined movable, tangible, personal property. Goods have been defined in Uniform
Commercial Code as these things, which have been movable at time of the identification
towards contract for sale. Term involves the future goods, particularly the manufactured
goods as well as unborn young of the animals, the growing crops & rest of the identified
things that are attached to realty.
In this given case, McKeesport Municipal authority is having the valid contract
with the Stephen Gall as well as his family for supplying the drinking water without
contamination (TIFFANY GALL v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH
DEPARTMENT, 2012). This has been clear that the McKeesport Municipal authority has
implied wa
anted that has to supply as well as give the service as per to valid contract as
per UCC. Mere argument that is water has not been goods has not at all the considerable
as well as even when so; still
each of the agreement of prevails. Hence the compliant of
Stephen Gall may not be dismissed.
Business Law and Ethics 2
10. In 1994, Schumacher and his wife and their two daughters moved to Finland,
Minnesota, to operate abar and restaurant called the Trestle Inn, which wasowned
y his parents. Schumacher claims that hisparents induced him to leave his previous
job and to make the move by orally agreeing to provide him a job managing the inn
for life and to leave the businessand a large parcel of land to him when his first
parent died. Schumacher was given free reign inmanaging the inn and was allowed
to retain all profitsof the business but was not given any salary orwage. While he
was operating the inn, Schumacherused his own funds to build a home for his family
onhis parents‟ land, install a well, buy equipment forthe business, and develop
various marketing tools for the business. In the fall of 1998, Schumacher suspected
that his parents were about to sell the innand the adjoining property. He
ought
suit for arestraining order to prevent them from doing so,claiming
each of
contract and unjust enrichment,among other claims. In October 1998, the
parentsnotified Schumacher that his employment at the inn
and his right to possess the adjoining property were terminated. The parents moved
for summary judgment.The trial court held that Schumacher‟s oralcontract claim
was invalid because the contractneeded to be in writing under applicable
Minnesotalaw. However, does Schumacher have a valid claimfor unjust
enrichment?
Answer:
This has been co
ect that oral contract claim has been invalid for contracts. For
the valid contract there must be offer, acceptance as well as consideration should exist &
much is in the writing. Oral matters would not create as well as mere spending of the
Business Law and Ethics 3
amount through the Schumacher on specified asset would not create any right on
property. Parents may succeed in this case as well as would get the summary judgment.
Claim of Schumacher has not been valid.
Appellant has argued that district court e
ed while granting the summary
judgment on its claim about the unjust enrichment. But, as appellant has presented the
sufficient evidence for...