Question

Knarles and Barkley are father and son respectively. Barkley is 17 years old. They operate a facilities maintenance company that regularly does business in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The company is based in Maryland. They have a number of contracts with building owners where they have agreed to provide building maintenance to both residential and commercial buildings within the three jurisdictions already mentioned. They receive a monthly payment of $2,000 to $4,000 depending upon the size of the building. They bill the owners for any equipment of a substantial nature that has to be replaced. Because of Knarles's long-term relationships with building owners, these contracts that were once in writing are generally renewed without a new written agreement. Often Knarles and Barkley will replace outdated and broken equipment such as water heaters and boilers that are part of a building's heating system. Further, as part of maintenance, they regularly wash windows, remove snow, and do touch-up painting as required.

Knarles and Barkley have four full-time employees. One of the employees is a licensed plumber in the District of Columbia. His yearly license renewal is paid by the firm as part of an employment agreement that was negotiated four years ago. That agreement was in writing and was for a period of two years. It was the second such agreement entered into between said employee and Knarles and Barkley. The license, through inadvertence on the part of Barkley, was not renewed this year. In the past Knarles had taken care of this, but he had assigned this duty to his son so he might gain experience in what was involved in the license renewal process.

While Knarles is away in Hawaii at a “green facilities maintenance trade show,” Barkley is approached by a building owner, Ian Chetum, in northern Virginia who has heard of their excellent reputation. Barkley sends Chetum a standard agreement signed by Barkley. Chetum signs it and returns it to Barkley with a check for the first month.

Chetum has an immediate need for the services of Knarles and Barkley as it is the middle of February and his building is without heat. Barkley sends the plumber and another worker to Chetum’sbuilding. While inspecting the nonoperating boiler at Chetum’sbuilding, the plumber notices that the boiler is one that has been recalled by the manufacturer, Housewarm, because of a defect that does not allow all the carbon monoxide produced by the boiler to vent properly. This boiler was purchased by Chetum at a salvage yard and replaced another nonoperating boiler. Further, the boiler has been improperly installed, according to the plumber. The plumber notifies Barkley of the problems with the boiler and Barkley immediately notifies Chetum. Chetum tells Barkley that he does not want to purchase a new boiler. He asks if the existing boiler can be fixed to get through the winter months. Barkley calls his plumber who is still at the Chetum site and asks the plumber about a quick fix for the winter. The plumber tells Barkley he would not recommend the quick fix for the winter as this boiler is defective and has been recalled. He also tells Barkley, “You’re the boss and I can get it to work if you really want me to.” Barkley replies, “I don’t want you to fix it, the client does. He is the customer and this business has been built on customer service.” Barkley calls Chetumagain and relays what his man on the site has said. Chetum replies, “Fix it.”

Knarles returns from his conference shortly after the fix on the boiler has taken place. He reads in the Washington Post on the first morning after his return that a number of residents in a building in northern Virginia had become sickened and admitted to the hospital for observation. It appeared that they were suffering from the effects of exposure to carbon monoxide. These people all lived in the Chetum building. While at lunch that day in a restaurant with his son and other members of the building maintenance community, he tells them about what he read in the Washington Post and says, “Thank God we don’t deal with that jerk Chetum. He is the shadiest operator in this region and would shoot his mother for a buck. What a crook!” One of the people at lunch, Joe Stucko, says, “I agree with you. Chetum stole my plans for converting old HVAC systems to new ones. I should sue him for stealing my ideas.”

Knarles later learns from his son of the agreement that he entered into with Chetum on behalf of the firm. Knarles calls Chetum and tells him he wants no part of the agreement and tells him he will messenger a check over to his office minus the charge for the work already completed by the plumber. Chetum sues for breach of contract.

What legal issues are raised by this case? Please be creative in your thinking. Remember that the issues that can be addressed deal with jurisdiction, torts and crimes, contract formation, remedies, sales. Address these issues in paragraph form, calling on what you have studied in the textbook and any outside sources. Be sure to cite your sources. Good luck.

Answer 1

When I use the phrase, "under common law," I am referring to the general principles of law in force since the founding of the USA. The only law in my outline that is not common law is the Greenman case that I cited (product liability law did not exist until the 20th Century).

But, if it helps, here are some cites to the various legal theories found in the outline (I cite Virginia law {except Greenman}, because most of the injuries in the case are sustained in that jurisiction):

Defamation. Ewell v. Boutwell, 138 Va. 402, 121 S.E. 912 (1924)
Battery. Cavuoto v. Buchanan County Dep't of Social Services, 605 S.E.2d 287, 44 Va.App. 326 (Va.App. 11/23/2004)
Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment. Hannan v. Dusch, 153 S.E. 824, 154 Va. 356 (Va. 06/12/1930)
Breach of Covenant of Good Faith. Bookman v. Cavalier Court, Inc., 93 S.E.2d 318, 198 Va. 183 (Va. 06/18/1956)
Strict Product Liability. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963)
Breach of Contract. Shenandoah Milling Co. v. Phosphate Products Corp., 171 S.E. 681, 161 Va. 642 (Va. 11/16/1933)
Formation. Id.
Defense - Incapacity. Strother v. Lynchburg Trust and Savings Bank, 156 S.E. 426, 155 Va. 826 (Va. 01/15/1931)
Implied Agency. Mosell Realty Corp. v. Schofield, 33 S.E.2d 774, 183 Va. 782 (Va. 04/23/1945)
Respondeat Superior. Gina Chin & Associates, Inc. v. First Union Bank, 260 Va. 533, 537 S.E.2d 573 (Va. 11/03/2000)
Professional Negligence.Sensenbrenner v. Rust, Orling & Neale, 374 S.E.2d 55, 236 Va. 419 (Va. 11/18/1988)

** end **

Do leave a thumbs up : )