Case 1 : Arbitration

Wright vs Universal Maritime Service Corp.

Facts: Wright is a longshorman and a member of the (ILA) international longshoremens
association that supplies workers for the universal Maritima service Corp. and other members
to the (SCSA). (ILA) and (SCSA) have a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between
them provided for arbitration of matters of dispute in one clause and all matters affecting
wages, hours, and other conditions of employment on another clause. The third close
includes anything that is not included in the argreement shall not be considered as a part of
the agreement.
Wright suffered from a job-related-injury that results in a disability. When the phisician
approved his return back to work, the members of the (SCSA) didnt hire him back.
Wright filed a suit in the federal district court, in the ground of disability discrimination.
Plaintiff: Wright
Defendants: Univesal maritime service corp, SCSA and other.
Defendants argued that the suit should be dismissed and Wright should claim his matter to
arbitration.
Federal distric court: sided with the defendants.
Wright appealed for the fourth circuit to the court of appeal.
U.S court of appeal: Affirmed the lower court decision.
Wright took the matter to the U.S Supreme court
Issue:
Should a broad and indefinite and unclear agreement to arbitrate signed by one party (not
signed by Wright) that concerns federal right protected by federal law be enforced or not?
U.S. Supreme Court: said that the dispute should not be solved trough arbitration since the
agreement was not signed by right. So it should not be enforced.

Case 2: arbitration
Gilmer vs interstate/johnson lane corp.
Facts: Johnson lane copr. Required its workers among which Gilmer to regsiter as securities
representative in the new yor stock enchange(NYSE). The registration application included an
agreement to arbitrate when (NYSE) requires it. One of the terms of the agreement concers
the registrants termination of employment.
Interstate terminated the employment of Gilmer at the age of 62.
Gilmer filed a suit in the federal district court in the ground of age discrimination.
Plaintiff: Gilmer
Defendant: interstate/Johnson lane corp.
The defendant told the court that Gilmer should claim his matter through arbitration according
to the agreement he signed (NYSE).
Federal district court: denied the defendant request
The defendant appealed.
The appellate court: Ordered arbitration
Gilmer appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Issue:
Should a broad and indefinite and unclear agreement to arbitrate signed by the two parties
involved Concerning federal right pretected by federal law be enforced or not?
U.S Supreme Court: yes the agreement to arbitrate should be enforced. Since the agreement
was signed by the two parties involved. Specialy Gilmer whi didn t want arbitration. The
court said why should we be afraid of arbitration? You agreed to solve the dispute through
arbitration in the agreement. It must go to arbitration.
 Case 3:
R. K. Chevrolet inc. vs Hayden
Facts: R. K chevrolet automobile dealership employed James Hyden as an assistant manager
in its used-car department. Haydens father owned and operated Coastal Chevrolet, one of the
R.K. Chevrolets competitors. After Hyden had worked more that one year with Chevro, he
signed a contract of employment of two years with Chevro. The only reason for him to quit is
the death of his father. He agrees to work continously at R.K Chevro for at least two years in
good faith.
9 months later, he quit the job without notice. After his departure, Chevro realiser a loss of
$348,832 in its used-car department.
The dealership filed a suit in Verginia state court againt Hyden seeking damages for breach of
contract.
Hyden said that there was no contract because the terms were indefinite.
Plaintiff: R.K chevrolet
Defendant: Hyden
Verginia state court: ruled on Hydens favor.
The dealership appealed.
Issue:
Whatever Hyden signed, was it a valid enforceable contratct or not ?
U.S court of verginia: held that the terms were sufficiently definite to create an enforceable
contract. The court reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded the case for a new
trial.

Ruud vs GPS

Facts:

-GPS is a big company that sells building material supply (it deals with millions of $), but it
started to lose a lot of money. So a person by the name of WIGLEY bought it and said that to
make it profitable, the company needed to have a new contract which is the right to fire any
employee at any time.
The manual of the contract offered to the employees stated clearly that the company has the
power to fire any employee at any time and close all unprofitable stores.
The company asked the plaintiff RUUD to move from a profitable to unprofitable store
knowing that RUUD was a good employee. So he was moved to this unprofitable store and
was given a lower job position with a lower salary.
-RUUD quit his job and brought a lawsuit to the Minnesota lower court for breach of the
second contract. The second contract was good employees are taken care of. The
Minnesota lower court rejected RUUDs lawsuit. (For gps)
-He appealed, and the state intermediate appellate court reversed the trial courts summary
judgement on the issue. (for ruud)
- The matter was then taken to the State Supreme Court. (for gps)

Issue:
The second contract good employees are taken care of was the statement made by the
director of the company. Was this statement an offer for permanent position or not?

Reasoning:
The court said that the statement good employees are taken care of is a general, vague,
and uncertain statement and does not ensure any permanent position to the employee. It was
not an offer. So the court referred to the first contract (the power to fire any employee at
any time) and hence rejected RUUDs lawsuit.
 Matherne vs Greenel (a revoir)

Facts:
A school by the name of Saint James Harris wanted to build an extra campus. It asked for bids
to constructors and builders. Before submitting its bid, one of the contractors interested in
building the campus modern asked from another company greenel to install a fire
protection system and asked how much they would charge them if they get the contract with
the school and makes greenel install the fire protection system for the new campus.
Greenel responded with a bid to modern of 79500$. Modern company included the 79500$
asked by greenel in their costs and submitted the bid to the school. The school accepted
moderns companys bid. But when modern asked greenel to begin the work of installing the
fire protection, Greenel changed its mind and increased the price by 3 times than the first offer
(79500 * 3). Modern refused and asked another contractor to install the fire protection for
193000$.
After that, modern brought a lawsuit against Greenel for the difference in price between the
first 79500 and 193000.

Issue:
Can the offeror greenel revoke his offer? (Answer is no)

Reasoning:
It is an exception since modern did not accept Greanells offer. There is no detrimental
reliance (if the offeree relies to his detriment on the offer of the offeror, the offeror cannot
revoke his offer, this is the general rule.) The general rule is that the offeror can always
revoke his offer but this situation is an exception. Thus the offeror cannot revoke his offer
under the exception called promissory estoppels.
but in this case, the offeree (modern) did not say anything about the offer of the offeror
(greanell). The offeree can also terminate the offerors offer by rejecting it or by making a
counter offer to the offerors offer. The rejection by the offeree is affected at the time it is
received by the offeror. Lapse of time: The offeree must accept the offer within the time
period specified within a reasonable time. If he doesnt do so he will have allowed the offer to
terminate. The reasonable time may be determined by the court.