Gary Porter Construction v. Fox Construction, Inc., 2004 Ut.App. 354, 101 p.3d 371 (2004).
Facts: The University of Utah was in need of a women’s Gymnastics training facility so they subcontracted Fox Construction, Inc. to complete the project. For the soil and ground work Fox Construction, Inc. subcontracted with Gary Porter Construction. Gary Porter Construction, Inc. performed their work based on specific plans as well as some work outside of the plans. The combined total from the planned project was $146,740. The additional work completed at Fox’s request cost Gary Porter construction additional costs and Fox refused to pay for the additional work done outside the subcontract.
Procedure: A suit was filed by Gary Porter in the Utah State Court against Fox with alleging breech of an implied-in-fact contract. The court granted summary judgment for Porter, which Fox later appealed to a state intermediate court.
Issue: If sections of a contract are left out by mistake, is the contract still valid and enforceable? Were all the requirements of an implied-in-fact contract met?
Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the lower courts summary judgment in favor of Porter. Fox knew that the additional work that Porter did would be followed up with an additional charge. Fox should have known that there would have been additional costs for the work outside of the planned procedure. Porter completed the work only after Fox’s manager requested it and it was implied to be additional from the start. The additional work not planned in the subcontract was valued at $161,309.08 as well as the $135,441.62 contacted value. The issue of the sections being mistakenly not represented in the contract is voided because Fox did not inform Porter about what all needed to be included.
Decision and Remedy: Gary Porter Construction won against Fox Construction, Inc. Fox was ordered to pay Porter the balance of $161,309.08 for the work done but was excluded in the original contract.
Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F.supp.2d 602 (2005).
Facts: In 1987 Jamil Blackmon met a promising high school basketball star, Allen Iverson. Blackmon supported Allen Iverson financially and provided other forms of support for his family as well, realizing his athletic potential. In 1994 Jamil Blackmon proposed a new nickname for the basketball star “The Answer”. The nickname would represent Mr. Iverson with clothing, sports apparel, and basketball shoes. Mr. Blackmon presented the idea to Allen and Allen agreed to give Blackmon 25 percent of profits from the nickname. Iverson was later drafted by the Philadelphia 76ers. After many months, Iverson entered a contract with Reebok, a shoe company, to manufacture, market, and sell a line of sportswear using the same nickname, “The Answer”. Blackmon moved to Philadelphia at the request of Mr. Iverson and has requested 25 percent of the profits on many occasions. Allen Iverson continues to receive pay from Reebok from the continuing product line.
Procedure: Mr. Blackmon filed a suit in Federal District Court against Mr. Iverson for breach of an express contract to which Allen Iverson filed a motion to dismiss.
Issue: Is past consideration sufficient to create a binding contract? Is continuous gracious conduct in exchange for a promise a valid consideration?
Reasoning: The court’s reasoning was fully based on past consideration. Mr. Iverson allegedly promised 25 percent of his profits because of three forms of consideration. First, Blackmon provided him with the nickname “The Answer”. Second, he helped Allen Iverson’s family, and third, he moved to Philadelphia when Iverson was drafted there. Mr. Iverson offered to pay Mr. Blackmon 25 percent long before entering a contract with Reebok. These forms of past consideration make the contract invalid. There were no valid forms of consideration to make a valid express contract between the two men.
Decision and Remedy: Allen...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document