There are 10 cases about Bussiness Law. Hope u can help me solve them.

In addition, the answer to each question is not less than 70 words.

Thx!

Business Law Case Study 1. Pass took his single-engine Piper airplane to Shelby Aviation for inspection and service. The bulk of Shelby Aviation's business was service-oriented. The invoice prepared by Shelby Aviation refers to the plane being brought in for \"repair\" and \"100-hour inspection.\" In servicing the plane, Shelby Aviation replaced both rear wing attach point brackets. With the cost of labor separated from the cost of the ma- terials, the percentage of the invoice attributable to materials was 37 percent. Subsequently, Pass and his wife left Plant City, Florida, in the plane, bound for Clarksville, Tennessee. Somewhere over Alabama, the couple flew into turbulence. Pass lost control of the plane and it crashed to the ground in Alabama, killing the Passes. The Passes' estates filed a breach of warranty action under the Uniform Commercial Code against Shelby Aviation. They claimed that the rear wing attach point brackets that had been sold and installed by Shelby Aviation were defective be- cause they lacked the bolts necessary to secure them to the plane. According to their complaint, Shelby Aviation employees failed to provide and install the bolts. The complaint further alleged that the missing bolts caused a failure of both wings of the plane to withstand the torque applied to an aircraft during tur- bulence, leading to Pass's loss of control of the plane and ultimately causing the crash. Shelby Aviation filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that its contract with Pass had been primarily for the sale of services, rather than goods, so that the transaction was not covered by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Was Shelby Aviation correct? 2. Holt worked as a manager for Home Depot from January 1995 to July 1999. Throughout those years, Home Depot assured employees through state- ments in the employee handbook and other means of communication that if they took advantage of the company's open-door procedure to complain to management about their supervisors, they would not be penalized. In March 1999, Home Depot moved Holt and his family to Connecticut so he could man- age a new distribution center in Bloomfield. Soon after he started there, he began to have difficulties and disagreements with his immediate supervisor. In June, he contacted a senior manager regarding his problems with her. On July 3, he called Home Depot's Impact Line to ask that forms be sent to him so he could make a formal complaint. On July 9, Home Depot terminated Holt's employment. Holt sued Home Depot, claiming promissory estoppel. The jury awarded Holt $470,000 in damages. Home Depot challenged the verdict, claiming that the jury could not reasonably find the elements of promissory estoppel. Did Home Depot win? 3. Chow arranged through a travel agent to fly from Indianapolis to Singapore on June 27, 1986. Sin- gapore Airlines gave him a round-trip ticket that included a TWA flight to Los Angeles. Shortly be- fore the trip, Chow's flight was rerouted so that he had to fly to St. Louis first and then to San Fran- cisco. During the St. Louis stopover, the flight de- veloped engine trouble, causing a substantial delay. TWA personnel assured Chow that if he missed his connecting flight, TWA would arrange for him to take the next Singapore flight out of San Francisco. After the engine problem was fixed, TWA delayed the flight's departure an additional two hours to board additional passengers. Chow was again as- sured that if he missed his scheduled flight, TWA would make arrangements for him. Chow missed his Singapore flight by minutes, and was housed overnight at TWA's expense in San Francisco after once more being assured that TWA would make arrangements to get him on the next Singapore flight. When he called Singapore Airlines the next morn- ing to see whether TWA had made him a reserva- tion, Chow was told that no arrangements had been made. When he contacted TWA, he was told that TWA would make the arrangements immediately. After waiting several hours, Chow learned that TWA still had not made the arrangements. He also was told that TWA could no longer help him. Be- cause Singapore Airlines no longer had economy class seats available, Chow had to buy a business class seat at an additional cost of $928. When he filed suit against TWA for that amount, TWA ar- gued that the Conditions of Contract printed on Chow's ticket disclaimed any liability for failure to make connections. Did Chow have a valid claim against TWA? 4. Hanson Staple Co. and Ole Mexican Foods entered into a contract for the sale of specially manufac- tured packaging from Hanson to Ole. Hanson then received an e-mail from Ole canceling its purchase order. Alleging that Ole had failed to purchase more than $300,000 worth of the specially manufactured packaging Hanson had produced, Hanson sued Ole for breach of contract. Hanson claimed that be- cause the packaging was customized for Ole, it was not suitable for resale to anyone else. Ole counter- claimed, contending that Hanson had breached the contract by shipping a defective product. Later, Hanson executives and Ole executives negotiated a handwritten \"agreement reached in settlement.\" This agreement provided in part that Ole would \"purchase a minimum of $130,000 worth of current inventory\" from Hanson and that Ole would \"test the remainder of the inventory and . . . purchase additional inven- tory if it meets quality expectations.\" Hanson filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, alleging that Ole had refused to perform. The Georgia trial court ordered Ole to purchase the inventory alluded to in the settlement agreement and held that the pur- chases would be governed by the Uniform Commer- cial Code. The court also stated that Ole retained the right to reject the inventory under the UCC if the inventory did not meet the standards of UCC warranties. Hanson appealed to Georgia's intermediate court of appeals. That court reversed after conclud- ing that the trial court erred in applying the UCC to the parties' settlement agreement. Ole appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. How did the Supreme Court rule? Was the trial court correct in concluding that the UCC controlled the settlement agreement, or was the intermediate appellate court correct in con- cluding that the UCC did not apply? 5. Stephen Gall and his family became ill after drink- ing contaminated water supplied to their home by the McKeesport Municipal Water Authority. They filed suit against the utility, arguing, among other things, that the utility had breached the UCC implied war- ranty of merchantability when it sold them contami- nated water. Arguing that water was not \"goods\" and that the UCC therefore should not apply, the utility moved to dismiss the Galls' complaint. How did the court rule? 6. Watson applied to Xcel Energy for a temporary utility worker position in response to an Internet job posting that stated, \"must have, or obtain within six months of start date, a valid CDL [commercial driver's license].\" The posting did not mention salary or start date. Also, it stated that it was an \"applicant pool posting for con- sideration in future openings\" and that, in order to \"fill this position continuously,\" Xcel \"maintains a pool of interested and qualified applicants who are contacted as soon as openings become available\" and \"[y]ou will be contacted only if you are selected for an inter- view. Xcel Energy reserves the right to close this posi- tion at any time.\" Xcel hired Watson on October 28, 2003. On April 8, 2004, an Xcel manager began re- viewing information on temporary utility workers to determine which of them would be extended offers of permanent employment. A report showed that Watson had not yet obtained a CDL. On April 13, 2004, the manager met with Watson, told him that his temporary employment was over, and terminated him effective immediately, allegedly because he had not obtained a CDL. Among other claims, Watson alleged that there was an implied contract between himself and Xcel to employ him for six months. He argued that the job posting was an offer, which he accepted. Was it? 7. Schiff, a self-styled tax rebel who had made a career out of his tax protest activities, appeared live on the February 7, 1983, CBS News Nightwatch program. During the course of the program, which had a viewer participant format, Schiff repeated his longstanding position that \"there is nothing in the Internal Revenue Code which says anyone is legally required to pay the tax.\" Later in the program, Schiff stated: \"If anybody calls this show and cites any section of this Code that says an individual is required to file a tax return, I will pay them $100,000.\"Newman, an attorney, did not see Schiff live on Nightwatch, but saw a two-minute taped segment of the original Nightwatch interview several hours later on the CBS Morning News. Certain that Schiff's statements were incorrect, Newman tele- phoned and wrote CBS Morning News, attempting to accept Schiff's offer by citing Internal Revenue Code provisions requiring individuals to pay federal in- come tax. CBS forwarded Newman's letter to Schiff, who refused to pay on the ground that Newman had not properly accepted his offer. Newman sued Schiff for breach of contract. Will Newman win? 8. Pernal owned a parcel of real estate adjacent to prop- erty owned by St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. Pernal sent a letter to the church indicating that he was offering it for sale for \"$825,000 cash/mortgage, 'as is,' with no conditions, no contingencies related to zoning and 120 days post closing occupancy for the present tenants.\" This offer was dated June 3, 2003, and expressly provided that it would remain open for a two-week period. On the same day, Pernal also sent the same offer to sell the property on the same terms to another prospective purchaser, White Chapel Memo- rial Association Park Perpetual Care Trust. On June 4, the church sent a letter indicating that it accepted the terms of the offer that Pernal had set forth in his letter. However, the church's letter also referenced an attached purchase agreement. The purchase agree- ment agreed with Pernal's purchase price and the close occupancy period, but contrary to the offer, it contained additional terms. The church's president signed this at- tached purchase agreement, but defendant did not sign it. The offer by letter dated June 3, 2003, did not ref- erence other potential purchasers. On June 10, White Chapel, by letter, offered to pay $900,000 cash for the property, with no conditions or contingencies related to zoning and 180 days post closing occupancy rent free. On that same date (June 10), Pernal sent a letter to both potential purchasers. This letter indicated that \"amended offers\" had been received. The letter fur- ther provided that the offer would remain open for two weeks' time as provided in the initial offering letter. On June 13, the church sent a letter to Pernal, stating that the offer had been accepted on June 4, and that an enforceable contract was formed. The church sued Pernal for breach of contract. Will it win? 9. Family Video made a written offer to buy out Home Folks' lease because it wanted to purchase and open a video store on the property on which Home Folks operated a restaurant. Over four months went by and Home Folks' operators did not sign the offer. The property was destroyed by fire and then Home Folks signed the offer and attempted to accept. Did Home Folks and Family Video have an enforceable contract? 10. Jeff visited a car dealership and test-drove a used car. After discussing the price with the salesman, Jake, and learning that he could purchase the car for $500 less than the sticker price, Jeff asked Jake to hold the car for him until 8:00 that evening so that he could bring his wife back to see the car. Jake agreed, writing out a note promising not to sell the car before 8:00 pm. The note was written on dealership stationery, but Jake did not sign his name. The dealership broke its promise and sold the car to Jones before 8:00 pm. Was it free to revoke its offer to Jeff? Jones, the new pur- chaser of the car (and a nonmerchant), later offered in a signed writing to sell the car to Jill and to hold the car for her until she returned with her husband. Could Jones revoke this offer