THE ETHICAL DIMENSION On what additional theories could ARI’s request for relief be based in this case? What common thread underlies these theories?

THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION Could ARI have successfully asserted a claim against SLT based on fraudulent misrepresentation? Explain.

Applied Resources, Inc. (ARI), makes computer hardware for point-of-sale systems—kiosks consisting of computers encased in chassis on which card readers or other payment devices are mounted. School-Link Technologies, Inc. (SLT), sells food-service technology to schools. In August 2003, the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) asked SLT to propose a cafeteria payment system that included kiosks. SLT asked ARI to participate in a pilot project, orally promising ARI that it would be the exclusive supplier of as many as 1,500 kiosks if the NYCDOE awarded the contract to SLT. ARI agreed. SLT intended to cut ARI out of the deal, however, and told the NYCDOE that SLT would be making its own kiosks. Meanwhile, SLT paid ARI in advance for a certain number of goods but insisted on onerous terms for a written contract, to which ARI would not agree. ARI suspended production of the prepaid items and refused to refund more than $55,000 that SLT had paid. SLT filed a suit in a federal district court against ARI. ARI responded with, among other things, a counterclaim for breach of contract, asserting that SLT had failed to use ARI as an exclusive supplier as promised. ARI sought to recover the expenses it had incurred for the pilot project and the amount of profit that it would have realized on the entire deal. SLT filed a motion for summary judgment on this claim.