The contract provided for an annual salary, insurance benefits, and other employment benefits. Another doctor, Dr. Quan, also practiced with Dr. Vranich. About nine months later, when Dr. Quan left the practice, Vranich and Winkel entered into an oral modification of their written contract whereby Winkel was to receive a higher salary and a profit-sharing bonus.
During the next year, Winkel received the increased salary. However, a disagreement arose, and Winkel sued to recover the profit-sharing bonus. Under Montana law, a written contract can be altered only in writing or by an executed oral agreement. Dr. Vranich argued that the contract could not be enforced because it was not in writing. Does Winkel receive the profit-sharing bonus? Did Dr. Vranich act ethically in raising the defense that the contract was not in writing? Winkel v. Family Health Care, P. C. , 205 Mont. 40, 668 P. 2d 208, Web 1983 Mont.
Lexis 785 (Supreme Court of Montana) In the matter of Winkel v. Family Health Care P. C. , the initial agreement and contract is not in questioned as there was no disagreement and Dr. Winkel proceeded to be employed for a period of at least 9 months. The Offeror of this initial contract was Loren Vranich aka Family Health Care P. C. and the Offeree was Dr. Winkel. A legally enforceable contract was entered into on that date. Yes! Because in the State that this contract is performed under, Winkel is entitled to the profit share bonus.
The original written contract states nothing about the raise or profit-share. Unfortunately because FHC went into an oral modification of the written contract which is permitted in the State, FHC must hold to its oral obligation. At a later date after a fellow doctor had left an offer was made to increase Dr. Winkle’s salary and he would be offered a profit sharing bonus. This supplemental oral contract bared the form of a unilateral contract in that the Offeror’s offer could only be accepted by the performance of an act by the Offeree. (Cheeseman p 157) No! Dr.
Vranich did act ethically by owning up to one part of the oral modification in paying Winkel the higher salary. By executing one portion of the oral modification she maybe felt she did not have to execute the other portion. Dr. Vranich did not act ethically in raising this defense because an oral modification was made and partially executed which in the State that this occurred allows an executed oral agreement. 10. 7 Acceptance Peter Andrus owned an apartment building that he had insured under a fire insurance policy sold by J. C. Durick Insurance (Durick).
Two months prior to the expiration of the policy, Durick notified Andrus that the building should be insured for $48,000 (or 80 percent of the building’s value), as required by the insurance company. Andrus replied that (1) he wanted insurance to match the amount of the outstanding mortgage on the building (i. e. , $24,000) and (2) if Durick could not sell this insurance, he would go elsewhere. Durick sent a new insurance policy in the face amount of $48,000, with the notation that the policy was automatically accepted unless Andrus notified him to the contrary. Andrus did not reply.
However, he did not pay the premiums on the policy. Durick sued Andrus to recover these premiums. Who wins? J. C. Durick Insurance v. Andrus, 139 Vt. 150, 424 A. 2d 249, Web 1980 Vt. Lexis 1490 (Supreme Court of Vermont) 11. 4 Preexisting Duty Robert Chuckrow Construction Company (Chuckrow) was employed as the general contractor to build a Kinney Shoe Store. Chuckrow employed Ralph Gough to perform the carpentry work on the store. The contract with Gough stipulated that he was to provide all labor, materials, tools, equipment, scaffolding, and other items necessary to complete the carpentry work.
Gough’s employees erected 38 trusses at the job site. The next day, 32 of the trusses fell off the building. The reason for the trusses having fallen was unexplained, and evidence showed that it was not due to Chuckrow’s fault or a deficiency in the building plans. Chuckrow told Gough that he would pay him to reerect the trusses and continue work. When the job was complete, Chuckrow paid Gough the original contract price but refused to pay him for the additional cost of reerecting the trusses.
Gough sued Chuckrow for this expense. Can Gough recover? Robert Chuckrow Construction Company v. Gough, 117 Ga. App. 140, 159 S. E. 2d 469, Web 1968 Ga. App. Lexis 1007 (Court of Appeals of Georgia) 13. 1 Unilateral Mistake Mrs. Chaney died, leaving a house in Annapolis, Maryland. The representative of her estate listed the property for sale with a real estate broker, stating that the property was approximately 15,650 square feet. Drs. Steele and Faust made an offer of $300,000 for the property, which was accepted by the estate.
A contract for the sale of the property was signed by all the parties. When a subsequent survey (done before the deed was transferred) showed that the property had an area of 22,047 square feet, the estate requested the buyers to pay more money for the property. When the estate refused to transfer the property to the buyers, they sued for specific performance. Can the estate rescind the contract?