Jury Simulation Questions
1. The common law applies to this contract because the contract is dealing with real estate. For it to be governed by the UCC it must by a contract for the sale of goods which it is not.
2. The signed proposal is an expressed contract. First, there was clear intent of acceptance by the bank. The bank prepared a term sheet and then signed and mailed the letter to Mr. Trill. Clearly they were satisfied with the deal, and Mr. Trill even then signed the proposal and sent it back to the bank. So, present intent was satisfied. Second, there was definiteness of the contract. The bank sent back the terms and even told the Iranians that they no longer had the offer until the Iranians decided to sue. This was when the bank reversed their decision and decided to go with the Iranians. I feel this shows the bank accepted the contract and they were ready to go through with the deal with Mr. Trill.
3. I think there is a lot of significance here. The bank stated that if the loan committee approved the proposal then they would go through with the deal. The bank created two contracts to two different people, whom they were liable to, by approving both of the deals. So, with the contracts already being on the table I feel it would not help the bank at all, and only show a further breach of contract.
4. I think the appraised value of the motor lodge should be included in the damages. This was the main part of the breach of the contract. Trill should be able to recover the $4.3 million he and the bank agreed upon for the motor lodge. This is a material breach and therefore Trill should be able to recover the full amount of this $4.3 million. I feel he is also able to recover consequential damages. His profits in my opinion are foreseeable and can be proven with reasonable certainty. The bank knew about his success with hotel renovations proving it was foreseeable and there were expert witnesses to prove it with reasonable certainty.
5. I think Trill is entitled to recover for punitive damages. The bank breached the duty of good faith by going back on what seemed to be a pretty clear contract to Trill. Therefore, breaking the act of good faith is an independent tort in this situation and the bank can be punished for it.
6. One of Trill’s strongest arguments is that there was a clear contract that was made and then breached by the bank. The bank was ready to go through with the deal until the threat of being sued by Snowbelt was upon them. So, I think there is little evidence to prove this was not a breach of contract. I also think he has a strong argument to recover both consequential and punitive damages, because it is clear to me the bank acted in bad faith by making two contracts and because his profit margin is well known and foreseeable for this type of deal.
7. The bank’s strongest