Contract Case Map Analysis - Essay Example

The Supreme Court upheld the district court’s ruling, on the basis that there was indeed a meeting of the minds, contrary to the allegation of Zsa Zsa Gabor. She alleges that because she had asked for two bedrooms in her suite and not two bathrooms, this in effect amended the contract.

The Court held that the modifications made by Ms Gabor are immaterial to affect the validity of the contract. Her amendments to the contract do not, in any way, alter its obligation.

GE Marquette Medical Systems is a company that had engaged the Biomedical Systems Corp. to make home uterine activity monitors (a.k.a. HUAM) These medical devices are regulated by the FDA. The contract between GE and Biomedical contained stipulations which stated that GE had to obtain pre-market notification clearance from the FDA, and for that purpose, Biomedical needed to give 90 days' notice of intent to market the device to the FDA. The 90-day notice is for the FDA to check if the HUAM is substantially similar to other devices already approved for sale.

However, GE instead requested that the FDA reclassify the HUAM device, which is a process that took over three years to complete. Thus, Biomedical sued GE for breach of contract and the jury awarded it damages. GE filed an appeal on the allegation that the clearance procedure Biomedical wanted in the contract violated FDA procedure.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling. The Court struck down GE’s raising the defence of illegality because this defence is not available. The contract with Biomedical clearly stated that GE would apply for clearance which it failed to do. Furthermore, the Court held that the FDA itself would have decided if clearance was proper.

Bluemound East is in the business of real estate and had sold to Kain a parcel of land, which had been filled. Kain had informed Bluemound that he intended to construct a building which would exert 3,000 pounds per square foot. Bluemound stated that the land was safe for that building, and even warranted it in the contract.

Kain had built a building that exerted even less than 3,000 pounds per square foot, and in a few years had sunk 2 inches. This resulted in Kain having to pay substantial sums for damage repair and preventive measures against further sinking. He then filed suit against Bluemound for breach of warranty. The lower court dismissed the claim for lack of evidence, thus Kain appealed.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling. It held that Bluemound had made a warranty as documented in the contract of sale, which is an assurance by one party to a contract of the existence of a fact upon which the other party may rely. A warranty is intended to relieve the promisee of any duty to ascertain the fact for himself and amounts to a promise to indemnify the promisee for any loss if the fact warranted proves untrue. Seeing as the warranty by Bluemound is clear and unambiguous, and proof that the sinking was not due to Kain's fault or negligence, the lower court is reversed. Read More