discussion Board Topic:

Chapter 9 & 10 Discussion Forum, after reading Chapters 9 & 10 and viewing the presentations, submit a response to the Module 9 & 10 Discussion Board:

Please see Cases for Analysis in Chapter Nine on page 281, go to Case #4 ( Ypsilanti v. GM ) and Case #6 (Savaretti & Wilma), then answer the questions that follow.

(Case #4) Should the court stop this move based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel? Explain why, or why not?

(Case #6) How should the referee rule in this caseexplain why?

Next, please see Cases for Analysis in Chapter Ten on page 301, go to Case #1 ( Mitchell v. State Farm ) and Case #9 ( Myers v. Terminix ) , then answer the questions that follow.

(Case #1) Is Mitchell correct explain?

(Case #9) Is Myers correct explain?

page 281 case# 4:

General Motors decided to move a car producing operation to Arlington, Texas, from a plant located in Ypsilanti, Michigan. As a result, the township of Ypsilanti brought a lawsuit to stop General Motors from making the move. Ypsilanti argued that GM had promised to keep the plant in Ypsilanti in exchange for certain tax privileges. The township argued further that it had relied on those promises when it granted that tax abatement to the corporation. Therefore, GM should be forced to keep its promise to maintain the Ypsilanti plant. Should the court stop this moved based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel? Explain. [See: Charter Township of Ypsilanti v. General Motors, 508 N.W.2d 556 (Michigan Court of Appeals).]

page 301 case# 1

After she was married, Sherri Mitchell, a young woman of 17 years of age, was in an automobile accident in which she was hurt enough to require medical treatment. She was later approached by an insurance agent who offered her $2,500 as a settlement. All she had to do was sign a release that would absolve the insurance company of any complaint that she might have against it in regard to the accident. She agreed to accept the $2,500 and signed a release to that effect; however, she then changed her mind and decided to void the agreement. She argued that since she was 17 at the time she signed the release, she was a minor and could therefore void the contract. Is Mitchell correct? Explain.

BUL4310 The legal environment of Business.