In the civil cases read, the defendants were alleged to have breach a contract or were engaged in some form of negligence that injured the other party. The first case explained the principle of properly making an offer that may lead to a contract. Specifically, the questioned the case dealt with was: Whether a newspaper advertisement was a form of a legally binding contract? In this case, the newspaper advertisement was incorrectly published by the newspaper company without the knowledge of the defendant, a car company name Sun-Times. The plaintiff, O’Brien, saw the incorrect advertisement and wanted Sun-Times to forcefully sell the car at the advertisement price instead of the true price Sun-Times had set. O’Brien argued that the newspaper …show more content…
The plaintiff, Bonk, had invented board game that consisted of guessing lyrics of songs. He brought the board game to the defendant, Milton Bradley, in hopes for the company to license the board game. Bonk was explained that his board game will undergo the process for consideration of licensing, however, the process may be canceled at any time by the company. As the board game moved through the process and negotiations commenced, in form of meetings and phone calls, the company realized there might be potential copyright infringement because Bonk had not acquired license to use the lyrics in the game. The process was canceled and Bonk sued on the basis that there was a legally binding oral contract and a promissory estoppels, meaning one party made a promise that the other party faithfully relied on and by not executing the promise injured him. The company argued that there was no formal oral agreement to enter into a contract whether oral or written. Moreover, the license agreement provided to Bonk states that the agreements between both parties would be executed through a written contract. The court rule based on the principle of promissory estoppels that Milton Bradley did not make a promise to Bonk that could have been reasonably relied on. Moreover, the negotiations were indefinite and were under the conditions that it may be canceled. Thus, there is no legally binding …show more content…
The question imposed in this case was: Whether the Hospital and the Red Cross were negligent and liable for the plaintiff’s injuries even though proper procedures were conducted? Ms. Smythe need blood transfusion before the Hospital could perform surgery on her. The Hospital acquired the blood need from the Red Cross which got the blood from donors. The contract the Hospital had with the Red Cross specified that the Red Cross had to properly test the blood to find any blood illnesses such as HIV or hepatitis. After the blood transfusion on Ms. Smythe the surgery was performed and was successful. However, it was found that the blood used was infected with HIV and Ms. Smythe was now positive with HIV. She sued on the basis that the Hospital and the Red Cross were negligent in assessing whether the blood could be used. The Hospital argued that they had successfully conducted their job without any negligence because the surgery was successful. The Red Cross argued that they took intense measure such as, asking oral questions in regards to medical history of all donors, using FDA screening test to determine of the blood was not contaminated, and provided information brochures for their patients to read and sign for consent, in order to properly asses that the blood could be use. However, the FDA screening test did not properly test