Connect on Whatsapp : +1 206 673 2541, Uninterrupted Access 24x7, 100% Confidential. Connect Now

Contract law | Law homework help

Analyze the issue based on the following criteria:

  • Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).
  • Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.
  • Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear.
  • Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.
  • Be prepared to defend your decision and to objectively evaluate the other points of view.

R. Edwin Powell was CEO and president of CAIRE, Inc., in addition to being a minority share-holder in Holdings, owning 11.9 percent of the company. In 1996, a group of investors decided to acquire Holdings and CAIRE. They formed MVE Investors, LLC. MVE purchased the shares of three retiring Holdings shareholders as part of a recapi-talization of the company. MVE paid the retiring shareholders $ 125.456 per share and became its primary owner. Powell did not sell his stock at this time and remained CAIRE’s CEO and president. In response to CAIRE’s financial setbacks, David O’Halloran, Holdings’ CEO and president, met with Powell on January 23, 1997, to fire Powell. While the two men agreed on a number of provi-sions in Powell’s severance package, they disagreed on the terms for the disposition of Powell’s stock. Powell testified that O’Halloran agreed, on behalf of Holdings, to buy Powell’s stock at the same price the retiring shareholders had been paid at the recapitalization. O’Halloran maintained he did not promise Powell that Holdings would buy Powell’s stock. But O’Halloran conceded that at the meeting he gave Powell a detailed chart showing the num-ber of shares Powell owned and how much money Powell would receive if those shares were sold or redeemed at the same price the retiring shareholders had received. O’Halloran also admitted he wrote a letter terminating Powell’s employment if he chose not to resign. In the letter, O’Halloran expressed Holdings’ intent to buy Powell’s stock in the same manner as it had bought the retiring shareholders’ stock. Holdings fired O’Halloran from his posi-tion as CEO and president. Powell brought action against Holdings, claiming, among other things, that Holdings had contracted to buy back his shares and then breached that contract. The district court found that Holdings had contracted to buy Pow-ell’s stock and breached the contract. The district court awarded Powell the amount Powell would have received had he sold his nonpledged stock for $ 125.456 per share. Holdings appealed, claiming that O’Halloran did not have authority to agree on its behalf to buy Powell’s stock, the district court’s finding that O’Halloran and Powell entered into a contract was contrary to the evidence, and any agreement was not the parties’ final expression, is void for lack of consideration, and is against pub-lic policy. As an agent of Holdings, did O’Halloran enter into a contract on Holdings’ behalf? Why? [ Powell v. MVE Holdings, Inc., 626 N. W. 2d 451 ( 2001).]


Looking for help with your homework?
Grab a 30% Discount and Get your paper done!

30% OFF
Turnitin Report
Title Page
Place an Order

Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -