Contract Cases

Question 1

hiett v LABARCA
facts
issue
rule

Answer 1

facts: plaintiff injured during triathlon sponsored by defendent when diving into lake. all participants required to sign entry form. trial judge ruled against plaintiff
issue: whether a pre-injury release from liability for negligence is void as being against public policy
rule: law in VA settled that an agreement entered into prior to any injury releasing a tortfeaser from liability for negligence resulting in personal injury, is void bc it violates public policy

Question 2

hiett v. LABARCA
reason
holding

Answer 2

reason: plaintiff argued waiver of liability in VA bc it violates public policy (good for society)
- in VA, signing pre-injury waiver of liability is illegal
- signing waver = assumption of risk

holding: pre-injury release provision signed by hiett is prohibited by public policy, and thus, it is void

Question 3

lund v bally’s aerobic plus
facts
issue
rule

Answer 3

facts: joined bally’s and signed up for personal trainer. reinjured cervical spine, requiring surgery during 1st session. sued bally’s for personal injury, that personal trainer was negligent when instructing her
issue: whether waiver and release applies to plaintiff’s use of bally’s weight lifting equipment under supervision of a personal trainer employed by bally’s
rule: release must be clear, unambiguous, and explicit in expressing the intent of the parties. defendent’s negligence must be reasonably related to object or purpose for which release is given

Question 4

lund v. bally’s aerobic plus
reason
holding

Answer 4

reason: injured while exercising with bally’s equipment = contract expressly states plaintiff assumes all risk of injury
- contract releases all claims arising out of negligence including injuries while using equipment and negligent instruction/supervision

holding: waiver and release clearly, unambiguously, and explicitly bars plaintiff’s claim

Question 5

can minors sign waivers?

Answer 5

minors cant release defendents from liability bc:

-dont have capacity

Question 6

central ny bball, inc v. richard barnett and cleveland bball club, inc
facts
issue

Answer 6

facts: barnett drafted by syracuse in 1957. within contract, syracuse had right to renew contract for one year. although syracuse gave barnett notice for renewal, barnett signed with cleveland, a breach of contract. syracuse wants injunction

issue: did syracuse and barnett come to an agreement?
is renewal provision valid and did syracuse exercise it?

Question 7

central ny bball, inc v. richard barnett and cleveland bball club, inc.
reason

Answer 7

reason: syracuse believes they formed a contract bc (1) had option to renew, (2) had a verbal agreement
- verbal agreement on salary increase and advance
- contract valid and enforceable - syracuse sent letter informing barnett of contract
- barnett and cleveland waited for outcome of sears case to know if it’s okay to switch leagues
- defendents get outcome and barnett signs with cleveland pipers

Question 8

central ny bball, inc v. richard barnett and cleveland bball club, inc
injunction
negative covenant
arms length or bonafide bargaining

Answer 8

injunction: w/ breach, need a situation that money cant suffice
evidence of special skill: pipers offered barnett higher salary to secure his services

negative covenant: one option; play for team and no one else

arms length or bonafide bargaining: equal bargaining power for both parties

Question 9

cleveland pipers owner

Answer 9

george steinbrenner

Question 10

vanderbilt university v. gerry dinardo
facts
issue

Answer 10

facts: fb head coach under contract with vanderbilt resigned to become head coach at lsu. vanderbilt files breach of contract. dinardo announces he accepts lsu’s position. vanderbilt sent demand letter for liquidated damages, but dinardo does not respond

issue: 1. was contract provision an enforceable liquidated damages provision and not an unlawful penalty in TN law?
2. did vanderbilt waive right to liquidated damages

Question 11

vanderbilt university v. gerry dinardo
rule
reason
holding

Answer 11

rule: provision will be considered for liquidated damages when it is reasonable in relation to the anticipated damages for breach

reason: use of formula that was proportionate to dinardo’s salary to calculate liquidated damages was deemed unreasonable
- very difficult to establish money value of a coach leaving the program

holding: contract contained an enforceable liquidated damage provision, that reflected damages calculated under original 5 year contract