Foodmart V. Masterpiece Case Study

The employees of Foodmart have had a few issues recently. The team gave an evaluation to three of the following situations. Foodmart contracted a renovation of one of their locations. The contractor subcontracted the job to a company whose performance was substandard. Foodmart petitioned for an injunction and sued for breach of contract and specific performance. Jeremy Atwater, a 17-year-old former employee of Foodmart purchased a car from the money he earned working at Foodmart. When he lost his job he was no longer able to afford the payments for the car. Jeremy tried to return the vehicle to cancel his contract and have his money returned. Brian McDonald an employee of Foodmart had a hobby involving model trains. He told a fellow hobbyist named Harry that when he retires Harry would be the only one he offers his trains to because he knew he would take care of them (University of Phoenix, 2010). When Brian retired he in turn sold the trains to his neighbor. Harry decided to sue Brian for breach of contract or the alternative of promissory estoppel.

Foodmart v. Masterpiece

Foodmart hired Masterpiece Construction to renovate one of their locations within a six-month time frame. Because of an increase in contracts Masterpiece Construction is not able to complete the project in that time frame. The work was subcontracted out to Build Them to Fall construction without Foodmart’s knowledge. The performance of the subcontracted work is of poor quality, and this is how Foodmart learned of Masterpiece Construction subcontracting the work. Masterpiece Construction believes that because of the increase in contracts they had the right to subcontract the work or discharge the contract because of the commercial impracticability. Foodmart sues for breach of contract and specific performance. The verdict of this claim will be in the favor of Foodmart. Masterpiece Construction could not be excused from the contract because of commercial implacability. The circumstances that