Professional Academic Writing Service
  • 100% Original Essays Guaranteed
  • Original and creative work
  • Timely delivery guaranteed
  • 100% confidentiality guarantee
  • 100% plagiarism FREE
  • Fully referenced
  • Any citation style
  • FREE amendments
Get an

Gingerich v Protein Blenders, Inc., 95 NW2d 522

1,Protein Blenders, Inc., made a contract with Gingerich to buy from him the shares of stock of a small corporation. When the buyer refused to take and pay for the stock, Gingerich sued for specific performance of the contract on the ground that the value of the stock was unknown and could not be readily ascertained because it was not sold on the general market. Was he entitled to specific performance? [Gingerich v Protein Blenders, Inc., 95 NW2d 522 (Iowa)]

 

 

2.Wassenaar worked for Panos under a three-year contract stating that if the contract were terminated wrongfully by Panos before the end of the three years, he would pay as damages the salary for the remaining time that the contract had to run. After three months, Panos terminated the contract, and Wassenaar sued him for pay for the balance of the contract term. Panos claimed that this amount could not be recovered because the contract provision for the payment was a void penalty. Was this provision valid Wassenaar v Panos, 331 NW2d 357 (Wis)

find those two case online, then write one -two page about the summary,issue, fact, and decision made by court.





Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!

Order Now

Free Turnitin Reports

Our Benefits

  • 100% plagiarism FREE
  • Guaranteed Privacy
  • FREE bibliography page
  • Fully referenced
  • Any citation style
  • 275 words per page
  • FREE amendments
Translate »

You cannot copy content of this page