Precision Concepts Corp v. General Employment &Triad Personnel Services -The facts: General employment contacted precision regarding a job opening and sent a potential employee, Tavery Tan, for an interview. Precision hired her but refused to pay GE for procuring the employee. Precision filed a complaint that there was no contract and the court rendered judgment to GE on a counterclaim. Precision appealed. -The Issue: were all the elements of a contract present to make the contract enforceable? -The decision: affirmed in favor or GE
-The Reasoning: the face that the appellant did not like the fee indicated does not preclude the finding of a binding contract. Appellant intended to negotiate, but never did so. Appellant hired Ms. Tan with the knowledge of the fee and did so without negotiation. A unilateral contract was formed and Precision became obligated to pay 1/3 of Ms. Tan’s first year salary.
Hartland Computer Leasing Corp v. The Insurance Man, Inc.
-The facts: The Insurance Man selected some computer equipment and Hartland bought it and leased it to them with a price and a guarantor. The lease stated that Hartland made no warranties and the lessee should look to the vendor for any needed repairs. Lease payments were due regardless of condition of the machine. After problems arose the lessee stopped paying, Hartland sued but the trial judge concluded it was a contract of adhesion and ruled against Hartland, who appealed. -The Issue: was this an adhesion contract?
-the decision: reversed in favor of Hartland
-the reasoning: in Missouri an adhesion contract is a form contracted created and imposed by a stronger party upon a weaker part as this or nothing. All the evidence surround this transaction say that it was only the equipment and not the terms of the contract which failed to live up to expectations. They did possess the right to seek relief under the express and implied warranties made by the vendor, but they sought relief from the...