4-1 response posts

Anonymous
timer Asked: Feb 2nd, 2019
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

Choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to elaborate and explain.

  • Show Me My Money (Reisenfeld & Company v. The Network Group Inc., p. 321)

Why does the court see this case as involving a quasi-contract as opposed to an actual contract? What other case law does the court rely on in finding precedent/support for compensating Reisenfeld? Does this decision appear to follow the golden rule guideline set forth in Chapter 2 (pp. 27 and 28)? Describe another example of an implied-in-fact or quasi-contract that you have experienced or is mentioned in the text.

  • Designer Baby (Scalisi vs. NY Univ. Medical Center, p. 429)

Why was the basis of the parent’s argument that they were not bound by the written contract in the Scalisi et al. v. New York University Medical Center case? How did the court rule and what was the reasoning for that decision. Do you agree or disagree. Why or why not? Have you ever entered into an oral contract? Discuss.

To complete this assignment, review the Discussion Rubric document.


just need 2 responses done.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Response to jamie In the designer baby case, Mr. and Mrs. Scalisi looked for help from the New York University medical center, as Mrs. Scalisi had a family history of autism. They were to use an egg donor and her husbands sperm for an in vitro fertilization procedure. The result of the procedure was twins, a boy and a girl. Prior to the procedure, there had been an oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant that allegedly meant "...an in vitro fertilization procedure that would not result in the birth of an autistic child." (Kubasek, Browne, Herron). One of the twins had been born with autistic traits which caused the plaintiffs to file a claim of 2 million in damages. The defense "moved to dismiss on the basis that the action was essentially a medical malpractice action, and not one for breach of contract,... also argued that the parol evidence rule precludes an action predicated on an alleged oral agreement when a subsequent written agreement on the same subject matter, and in direct contradiction of the purported oral agreement, was signed by plaintiffs." (www.courts.state.ny.us, no author) The court ruled: "The state court of appeals affirmed, finding that even if the alleged oral promises had been made, they were inadmissible in the light of the existence of the subsequent written agreement directly contradictory to them." (Kubasek, Browne, Herron) I know it seems morally wrong because I understand where the plaintiffs are coming from on wanting to have healthy children, but with the evidence, I agree with the court here. Even though they had discussed implanting the egg into the plaintiff and that the baby was going to not have autistic traits, the signed contract stated otherwise and the plaintiffs read, agreed an signed this contract. They also failed to submit a motion in court against the defendant too late, 3.5 years later. I think almost anyone has entered into oral contracts. I always orally bet my friends or someone that I am right and they are wrong in certain scenarios, and try to prove them wrong. Of course I am always like if I am right you owe me 10 bucks or something! This is considered an oral contract correct? References: Kubasek, N., Browne, M., Herron, D., Giampetro-Meyer, A., Barkacs, L., Dhooge, L., & Williamson, C. (2017). Dynamic Business Law (4th ed.) [Connect digital version]. Retrieved from http://connect.mheducation.com/ Justia, US law. N/A. Bonnie Scalisi v New York University Medical Center. Retrieved from: https://law.justia.com/cases/newyork/appellate-division-first-department/2005/2005-09238.html Scalisi v New York Univ. Med. Ctr. 2005. Retrieved from: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_09238.htm Response to marquita The Reisenfeld & Co. v. The Network Group Inc.; Builders Square Inc. case was acknowledged as a quasi-contract under the Ohio Law. There are three elements for a quasi-contract in Ohio: (1) a benefit must be conferred by the plaintiff upon the defendant; (2) knowledge by the defendant of the benefit; and (3) retention of the benefit by the defendant under circumstances where it would be unjust to do so without payment (Kubasek et al., 2017 p. 321). Reisenfeld greatly benefited BSI by subleasing two of their stores which they were supposed to be compensated for according to the agreement with Network. In addition, BSI was aware of the work that Resienfeld was doing as a subcontractor - fulfilled the first two elements of quasi-contract law in Ohio. If Network had been compensated and thus refrained from paying Reisenfeld, this entire case would have had a different context. However, BSI did not compensate Network, which in turn left Reisenfeld uncompensated. So BSI was profiting from the work of his contractor and subcontractor and did not pay them for it, this is unjust enrichment. The other case that was brought up, for example, Booher Carpet Sales v. Erickson, was a situation where the subcontractor tried to sue the owner but could not justly do so because the owner paid the middle man, the contractor, for the job needed to be done. In this case, the suit should really be between the contractor and subcontractor. However, this is not the case for Reisenfeld (subcontractor), Network Group (contractor) and BSI (owner). The owner failed to pay the contractor as well which means that the owner was unjustly enriched according to the quasi-contract. This decision does align with The Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If BSI conducts business or completes work for someone on a contractual basis, it is evident that payment would be expected. This validity should be applied to Reisenfeld’s case as well. Reference: Kubasek, N., Browne, M., Herron, D., Giampaolo-Meyer, A., Barkacs, L., Dhooge, L., & Williamson, C. (2017). Dynamic Business Law (4th ed.) [Connect digital version]. Retrieved from http://connect.mheducation.com/ Reisenfeld & Co. v. Network Group, Inc., 277 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. 2002). Discussion Rubric: Undergraduate Your active participation in the discussion topics is essential to your overall success this term. Discussion questions are designed to help you make meaningful connections between the course content and the larger concepts and goals of the course. These discussions offer you the opportunity to express your own thoughts, ask questions for clarification, and gain insight from your classmates’ responses and instructor’s guidance. Requirements for Discussion Topic Assignments Students are required to post one initial post and to follow up with at least two response posts for each discussion topic assignment. For your initial post (1), you must do the following:  Compose a post of one to two paragraphs.  In Module One, complete the initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.  In Modules Two through Eight, complete the initial post by Thursday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.  Take into consideration material such as course content and other discussion topics from the current module and previous modules, when appropriate (make sure you are using proper citation methods for your discipline when referencing scholarly or popular resources). For your response posts (2), you must do the following:  Reply to at least two different classmates outside of your own initial post thread.  In Module One, complete the two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.  In Modules Two through Eight, complete the two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.  Demonstrate more depth and thought than simply stating that “I agree” or “You are wrong.” Guidance is provided for you in each discussion prompt. Rubric Critical Elements Comprehension Timeliness Exemplary (100%) Develops an initial post with an organized, clear point of view or idea using rich and significant detail Proficient (85%) Develops an initial post with a point of view or idea using adequate organization and detail Submits initial post on time Needs Improvement (55%) Develops an initial post with a point of view or idea but with some gaps in organization and detail Submits initial post one day late Not Evident (0%) Does not develop an initial post with an organized point of view or idea Value 40 Submits initial post two or more days late 10 Engagement Provides relevant and meaningful response posts with clarifying explanation and detail Provides relevant response posts with some explanation and detail Provides somewhat relevant response posts with some explanation and detail Provides response posts that are generic with little explanation or detail 30 Writing (Mechanics) Writes posts that are easily understood, clear, and concise using proper citation methods where applicable with no errors in citations Writes posts that are easily understood using proper citation methods where applicable with few errors in citations Writes posts that are understandable using proper citation methods where applicable with a number of errors in citations Writes posts that others are not able to understand and does not use proper citation methods where applicable 20 Total 100% ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

Knutsen
School: Cornell University

here are the responses. Go through them and in case of anything, feel free to alert me.Regards

Running head: RESPONSE TO POSTS

Response to Posts
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation

RESPONSE TO POSTS

2
Response to Jamie

In this case, the designer baby case, whereby Mr. and Mrs. Scalisi had looked for help
from University of New York medical Centre due to history of family autism from Mrs. Scalisi
to aid them in getting a child who does not have the autism ...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Thanks, good work

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors