For Your Data Alaska Packers’ Association V. Domenico Illustration Brief
October 30, 2020
Edit
Alaska Packers’ Association v. Domenico representative brief summary
117 F. 99
SYNOPSIS:
Appellant companionship challenged the judgment of the District Court of the States for the Northern District of California, inwards a representative where libelants, fishermen, brought adapt against appellant, alleging that appellant had contracted to pay them higher wages.
OVERVIEW: Libelants, fishermen, contracted amongst appellant companionship to canvas from San Francisco to Alaska together with function for appellant during the line-fishing season. When the transportation arrived inwards Alaska, libelants demanded higher payoff than were provided for inwards the contract; libelants stated that they would non function unless they were paid additional wages. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 supervisor for appellant agreed to the need together with executed an altered contract, compelled yesteryear the remote location together with difficulty of finding replacement workers. When libelants returned to San Francisco, appellant denied the validity of the afterward contract.
HOLDING:
The courtroom held that the afterward contract was non supported yesteryear adequate consideration because it was based alone on libelants' understanding to homecoming the exact services that they were already obligated to perform.
ANALYSIS:
When parties did what they were already contractually obligated to do, they could non need additional compensation.
OUTCOME: The courtroom held that the contract was non supported yesteryear adequate consideration because it was based alone on libelants' understanding to homecoming the exact services that they were already obligated to perform.
---
Interested inwards learning how to become the summit grades inwards your police pull schoolhouse classes? Want to acquire how to report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
117 F. 99
SYNOPSIS:
Appellant companionship challenged the judgment of the District Court of the States for the Northern District of California, inwards a representative where libelants, fishermen, brought adapt against appellant, alleging that appellant had contracted to pay them higher wages.
OVERVIEW: Libelants, fishermen, contracted amongst appellant companionship to canvas from San Francisco to Alaska together with function for appellant during the line-fishing season. When the transportation arrived inwards Alaska, libelants demanded higher payoff than were provided for inwards the contract; libelants stated that they would non function unless they were paid additional wages. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 supervisor for appellant agreed to the need together with executed an altered contract, compelled yesteryear the remote location together with difficulty of finding replacement workers. When libelants returned to San Francisco, appellant denied the validity of the afterward contract.
HOLDING:
The courtroom held that the afterward contract was non supported yesteryear adequate consideration because it was based alone on libelants' understanding to homecoming the exact services that they were already obligated to perform.
ANALYSIS:
When parties did what they were already contractually obligated to do, they could non need additional compensation.
OUTCOME: The courtroom held that the contract was non supported yesteryear adequate consideration because it was based alone on libelants' understanding to homecoming the exact services that they were already obligated to perform.
---
Interested inwards learning how to become the summit grades inwards your police pull schoolhouse classes? Want to acquire how to report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?
-->