| Contracts - United Steelworkers v. US Steel (9/4) | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 6 2008, 02:11 AM (48 Views) | |
| Post #1 Sep 6 2008, 02:11 AM | Mike |
|
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1330, et al. v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION No. C 79-2337 Y UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, EASTERN DIVISION 492 F. Supp. 1; 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17304; 103 L.R.R.M. 2925; 90 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P12,445 Order February 29, 1980 SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] On Injunctive and Declaratory Relief March 21, 1980.On Violation of Antitrust Laws April 14, 1980. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff union filed a motion for preliminary relief, seeking to enjoin defendant steel mill from proceeding with a plan to shut down its plant. OVERVIEW: The union filed suit against the steel mill, seeking to enforce the mill's alleged promise to keep its plants open so long as it remained profitable. The union's complaint alleged breach of contract, promissory estoppel, violation of antitrust statutes, and property right. Upon the union's motion, the court temporarily enjoined the steel mill from closing the plants. The steel mill sought a stay of the enforcement of the order pending an emergency appeal to the appellate court. The stay was denied and the court's injunctive order was affirmed as modified into a temporary restraining order for a definite period. The court found for the steel mill in the areas of breach of contract and promissory estoppel, holding that the union provided insufficient evidence to prove that corporate officers had authority to make such promises. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to rule on the antitrust allegations and ordered a preliminary enjoinder of the steel mill for 60 days for the parties to prepare evidence and brief the law on those claims. OUTCOME: The court found for the steel mill on the union's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims, but ordered a preliminary enjoinder of the steel mill pending the ultimate disposition of the case by the court. CORE TERMS: plant, steel, profitable, profitability, productivity, message, financing, hot-line, property right, detrimental reliance, antitrust, region, obsolescence, pretrial conference, steel mills, cooperation, preliminary injunction, anti-trust, shutdown, estoppel, injunctive relief, profit margin, save, probability, forbearance, unilateral, promised, binding, technological, restraining LexisNexis® Headnotes Hide Contracts Law > Types of Contracts > Bilateral Contracts Contracts Law > Types of Contracts > Unilateral Contracts > General Overview HN1 A contract must be either unilateral or bilateral that is, parties must either exchange a promise for a promise or a promise for an act. A unilateral contract does not come into existence until one party to it has done all that is necessary on his part. More Like This Headnote Contracts Law > Consideration > Detrimental Reliance Contracts Law > Consideration > Enforcement of Promises > General Overview Contracts Law > Consideration > Promissory Estoppel HN2 Promissory estoppel requires that a promise that the promissor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promissee and that does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict By Headnote Business & Corporate Law > Agency Relationships > Authority to Act > Contracts & Conveyances > Formation & Negotiation Business & Corporate Law > Corporations > Directors & Officers > General Overview Contracts Law > Types of Contracts > General Overview HN3 The formation of a proper contract requires that the employee of the corporation who makes a promise must have the authority to enter into the contract. Unless express authority is conferred upon an officer or agent of the corporation or there appears to be a clear course of dealing with the world implying authority in an officer or agent, the corporation can be bound only by its board of directors. More Like This Headnote Governments > Courts > Authority to Adjudicate Governments > Courts > Judicial Precedents Governments > Legislation > Statutory Remedies & Rights HN4 The court is not a legislative body and cannot make laws where none exist; only those remedies prescribed in the statutes or by virtue of precedent of prior case law can be given cognizance. More Like This Headnote Civil Procedure > Justiciability > Ripeness > General Overview Constitutional Law > The Judiciary > Case or Controversy > Ripeness HN5 The doctrine referred to as "ripeness" is one of the most evanescent of the threshold issues to be considered by a court before reaching the merits. The most general theme in denying adjudication is that the plaintiff's control means that the future events that would raise the offered questions may never happen. A major component of such determinations inevitably must be a uniquely case oriented evaluation of the practical probabilities, as near as the court's common sense and knowledge of human nature can make out. More Like This Headnote |
Administrator
|
|
![]() |
| « Previous Topic · Contracts · Next Topic » |





3:36 AM Jul 11