2. Agency. Homeowners Jake and Lilo Cross hired Katrina and Wave Pappadopoulos, doing business as Crete Creations to undertake a landscaping project. The Crosses made payments on the contract with checks payable to Katrina, who deposited them in his personal account. There was no Crete Creations account. Later, alleging breach of contract, the Crosses filed a suit in a Georgia state court against the Pappadopouloses. The defendants argued that they could be be liable because the contract was not with them personally. They claimed that they were the agents of Never Brown Landscaping and Waterworks, Inc., at the time of the contract and had once filed for bankruptcy. The Crosses pointed out the name Never Brown was not in the contract. Should the Pappadopouloses as individuals be held liable on the contract? Why or why not? 5. Contracts. Red Owl Stores told the Hoffman family that upon the payment of approximately $118,000 a grocery store franchise would be built for them in a new location. On the advice of Red Owl, the Hoffmans bought a small grocery store in their hometown to get management experience. After the Hoffmans operated at a profit for three months, Red Owl advised them to sell the small grocery, assuring them that Red Owl would find them a larger store elsewhere. Although selling at that point would cost them much profit, the Hoffmans followed Red Owls directions. Additionally, to raise the required money for the deal, the Hoffmans sold their bakery business in their hometown. The Hoffmans also sold their house and moved to a new home in the city where their new store was to be located. Red Owl then informed the Hoffmans that it would take $124,100, not $118,000, to complete the deal. The family scrambled to find the additional funds. However, when told by Red Owl that it would now cost them $134,000 to get their new franchise, the Hoffmans decided to sue instead. Should Red Owl be held to its promises? Explain. 8. Employment Law. The Steamship Clerks Union has approximately 124 members, 80 of whom are classified as active. Members serve as steamship clerks who, during the loading and unloading of vessels in the port of Boston, check cargo against inventory lists provided by shippers and consignees. The work is not taxing; it requires little in the way of particular skills. On October 1, the Union formally adopted the membership sponsorship policy (the MSP), which provided that any applicant for membership in the Union (other than an injured longshoreman) had to be sponsored by an existing member for his application to be considered. The record reveals, without contradiction, that (a) the Union had no African-American or Hispanic members when it adopted the MSP; (b) blacks and Hispanics constituted from 8 percent to 27 percent of the relevant labor pool in the Boston area; (c) the Union welcomed at least thirty new members over the next six years and then closed the membership rolls; (d) all sponsored applicants during this period and, hence, all the new members, were Caucasian; and (e) every recruit was related to (usually the son or brother of) a Union member. After conducting an investigation and instituting administrative proceedings, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought suit, alleging that the Union had discriminated against African-Americans and Hispanics by means of the MSP. Explain whether or not the EEOC will prevail. 9. Intellectual Property. Stella, a chemist, was employed by Johnson, a manufacturer, to work on a secret process for Johnsons product under an exclusive three-year contract. Johnson employed Dabney, a salesperson, on a week-to-week basis. Stella and Dabney resigned their employment with Johnson and accepted employment in their respective capacities with Washington, a rival manufacturer. Dabney began soliciting patronage from Johnsons former customers, whose names he had memorized. What are the rights of the parties in (a) a suit by Johnson to enjoin Stella from working for Washington and (b) a suit by Johnson to enjoin Dabney from soliciting Johnsons customers? 10. Sales under the UCC. On December 15, Judy wrote a letter to David stating that she would sell to David all of the mine-run coal that David might need to buy during the next calendar year for use at Davids factory, delivered at the factory at a price of $50 per ton. David immediately replied by letter to Judy stating that he accepted the offer, that he would purchase all of his mine-run coal from Judy, and that he would need 200 tons of coal during the first week in January. During the months of January, February, and March, Judy delivered to David a total of 700 tons of coal, for which David made payment to Judy at the rate of $50 per ton. On April 10, David ordered 200 tons of mine-run coal from Judy, who replied to David on April 11 that she could not supply David with any more coal except at a price of $58 per ton delivered. David thereafter purchased elsewhere at the market price, namely $58 per ton, all of his factorys requirements of mine-run coal for the remainder of the year, amounting to a total of 2,000 tons of coal. Can David now recover damages from Judy at the rate of $8 per ton for the coal thus purchased, amounting to $16,000?