• • On Sunday, October 6, 1974, the Leweiston Lodge of Elks sponsored a golf tournament at the Fairlawn Country Club in Poland, Maine. For promotional purposes, Marcel Motors, an automobile dealership, agreed to give any golfer who shot a hole-in-one a new 1974 Dodge Colt. Fliers advertising the tournament were posted in the Elks Club and sent to potential participants. On the day of the tournament, the 1974 Dodge Colt was parked near the clubhouse, with one of the posters conspicuously displayed on it. Alphee Chenard, Jr., who had seen the promotional literature regarding the hole-in-one offer, registered for the tournament and paid the requisite entrance fee. While playing the thirteenth hole of the golf course, in the presence of the other members of his foursome, Chenard shot a hole-in-one. When Marcel Motors refused to tender the automobile, Chenard sued for breach of contract. [Chenard v. Marcel Motors, 387 A.2d 596, 1978 Me. Lexis 911 (Maine 1978)]
    • Was the contract a bilateral or unilateral contract?
    • Do you think Chenard should have won?
    • Was it ethical for Marcel Motors to refuse to give the automobile to Chenard?
  • Richard Zientara was friends with Chester and Bernice Kaszuba. All three were residents of Indiana. Bernice, who was employed in an Illinois tavern where Illinois state lottery tickets were sold, had previously obtained lottery tickets for Zientara because Indiana did not have a state lottery. In early April 1984, Zientara requested that Kaszuba purchase an Illinois lottery ticket for him. He gave Kaszuba the money for the ticket and the numbers 6-15-16-23-24-37. Kaszuba purchased the ticket, but when it turned out to be the winning combination, worth $1,696,800, she refused to give the ticket to Zientara and unsuccessfully tried to collect the money. Zientara filed suit against Kaszuba in Indiana, claiming the ticket and proceeds thereof. [Kaszuba v. Zientara, 506 N.E.2d 1, 1987 Ind. Lexis 874 (Ind. 1987)]
    • Was the contract legal?
    • Did the Kaszubas act ethically in this case?
  • Indiana Tri-City Plaza Bowl (Tri-City) leased a building from Charles H. Glueck for use as a bowling alley. The lease provided that Glueck was to provide adequate paved parking for the building. The lease gave Tri-City the right to approve the plans for the construction and paving of the parking lot. When Glueck submitted paving plans to Tri-City, it rejected the plans and withheld its approval. Tri-City argued that the plans needed to meet its personal satisfaction before it had to approve them. Evidence showed that the plans were commercially reasonable in the circumstances. A lawsuit was filed between Tri-City and Glueck. [Indiana Tri-City Plaza Bowl, Inc. v. Estate of Glueck, 22 N.E.2d 670, 1981 Ind.App. Lexis 1506 (Ind. App. 1981)]
    • Who should have won, in your opinion?
    • Was it ethical for Tri-City to reject the plans?

Can you provide a reference?