Design Cо., а 20-yeаr-оld rоcket compаny, hired Dan, an up-and-coming designer, to design a one-of-a-kind artistic logo to be used on their equipment and website. Design Co. specifically hired Dan after seeing a news article that covered Dan’s recent designs of unique logos for various companies that had contributed to their success. After discussing the work, Ed, the president of Design Co., and Dan signed a mutually-drafted handwritten contract, which states in its entirety: “Dan shall design a unique logo, which is to be registered for Design Co.’s sole use. Design Co. shall pay $75,000 upon completion of the work.” When Dan began work, he was surprised to learn that Design Co. had previously used over 100 different logos, which had not been disclosed during negotiations. When Dan complained, Ed told him this research was part of the designer’s responsibilities. Although Dan disagreed, he spent four weeks gathering as much information as possible regarding the former logos used. When Dan finished the logo, he submitted a bill for $78,000, having added $3,000 for labor and time for research. Design Co. sent a letter to Dan stating that no payment was yet due since the logo provided was notably like a logo they used 15 years ago. Design Co.’s letter also stated that it had recently spoken to several designers who perform similar work and confirmed that “research regarding former logos” was typically the designer’s responsibility. Dan sued Design Co. for breach of contract in the amount of $78,000. Design Co. countersued for specific performance to have Dan submit another logo for its approval. What damages is Dan likely to recover against Design Co.? Is Design Co. likely to prevail in its lawsuit seeking specific performance against Dan? Discuss.
Questiоns 30 – 32 rely upоn the fоllowing Fаct Scenаrio: Cuyаhoga County Public Officials Jimmy DeJonas and Frank Rossi are currently under investigation by the FBI and US Dept. of Justice, allegedly for trading public contracts for a series of personal favors, both monetary and sexual. According to newspaper accounts, both individuals traded on their ability to award public contracts for years. Among the individuals who allegedly bribed DeJonas was John Blaze, the owner of Blaze Construction Co. Mr. Blaze allegedly performed $50,000 in free renovations to DeJonas’s home in exchange for the award of several construction contracts and for DeJonas’s assistance in resolving problems with county building inspectors (who issue permits for completed buildings). The FBI also alleges that DeJonas and Rossi conspired together to trade their political influence for bribes; one would collect a bribe, and the other would ask one of their employees to do a favor for the person delivering the bribe. You may assume there is good evidence besides the evidence described here that such a conspiracy existed, and that DeJonas and Rossi will be tried separately.30. Assume that the FBI has pre-arrest tape recordings of DeJonas telling an unindicted mid-level county employee, “I want you to take care of Mr. Blaze’s permitting problems.” These recordings are: