a) Brockwell left his boat to be repaired at Lake Gaston Sales. The boat contained electronic equipment and other personal items. Borckwell signed a form stating that Lake Gaston had “no responsibility for any loss to any property in or on the boat.” Brockwell’s electronic equipment was stolen and other personal items were damaged, and he sued. Is the exculpatory clause enforceable?
b) Guyan Machinery, a West Virginia manufacturing corporation, hired Albert Voorhess as a salesman and required him to sign a contract stating that if he left Guyan, he would not work for a competing corporation anywhere within 250 miles of West Virginia for a two-year period. Later, Vorhees left Guyan and began working at Polydeck Corp., another West Virginia manufacturer. The only product Polydeck made was urethane screens, which comprised half of 1% of Guyan’s business. Is Guyan entitled to enforce its noncompete clause? Should these type of clauses even be allowed? What about for doctors? Dentists? Lawyers?
c) The McAllisters had several serious problems with their house, including leaks in the ceiling, a buckling wall, and dampness throughout. They repaired the buckling wall by installing I-beams to support it. They never resolved the leaks and the dampness. When they decided to sell the house, they said nothing to prospective buyers about the problems. They stated that the I-beams had been added for reinforcement. The Silvas bought the house for $60,000. Soon afterward, they bagan to have problems with leaks, mildew, and dampness. Are the Silvas entitled to any money damages? Why or why not?
d) Lonnie Hippen moved to Quahog, Rhode Island, to work at an insurance company owned by Peter Griffin. After he moved there, Peter offered to sell Lonnie a house he owned and Lonnie agreed in writing to buy it. Lonnie did, in fact, buy the house and move in, but two years later, he left the insurance company (because of the economy and those “malicious and dastardly plaintiffs’ lawyers”). He then claimed that at the time of the sale, Peter had orally promised to buy back the house at the selling price if Hippen should happen to leave the company. Peter defended based on the statute of frauds. Hippen argued that the statute of frauds did not apply because the repurchase of the house was essentially part of his employment with Peter. Who is correct in this situation and why?