Ardito Vs Providence Analysis

Ardito v. City of Providence 263 F. Supp.2d 358

The Ardito vs. Providence case was a conflict between Derek Ardito, a person who applied for the position of police officer and the city of Providence, Rhode Island who began hiring to fill out police officer vacancies (Derek A. ARDITO, et al. v. City of Providence, et al., 2003). The conflict started when Colonel Dean Esserman got appointed and ordered a review of the procedure in selecting applicants for the 61st Academy, one of the two academies used for the training. Once after knowing the procedure, Esserman concluded by saying that the selection process was too subjective for his liking. He directed one of the lieutenants to write to all the applicants who passed the physical and written

O. LUCY AND J. C. LUCY v. A. H. ZEHMER AND IDA S. ZEHMER., 1954). The argument was about the land Zehmer sold to Lucy for 50,000 dollars; the problem is that he offered it in jest. Zehmer assured that he meant it in a joking manner, but Lucy left, insisting that he sold the land. The conflict was about the existence of the contract: Lucy argued that there was one at the back of a restaurant check and was signed by both Mr. and Mrs. Zehmer. Zehmer testified that when making the deal, Mr. Lucy was already high from drinking too much when Lucy asked him about the land saying, “I bet you wouldn't take $50,000.00 for it”, to which Zehmer didn’t believe Lucy had. Zehmer’s wife also testified about the event, adding that Zehmer told her that it was nothing but a joke. The rights of the case were that of common rights as the law judged an agreement between two parties exclusively from those expressions of their intentions which are communicated to them. The decision made for the Zehmers to perform a proper contract as the decree appeal was

SHRADER , 1992). Dodson, then 16 years of age, paid 4,900 dollars in cash with no misrepresentation about his age from the Shraders. Nine months after the purchase, the truck developed mechanical problems such as a burnt valve, as diagnosed by a mechanic. Not having the money, Dodson continued driving the truck despite the problems. A month later, on January of 1988, the truck became completely inoperable and soon contacted the Shraders to request a full refund. The couple refused thus Dodson then filed an action to recover the amount paid for the truck as well as to cancel the contract. The case regarding Dodson and the truck is more to do with common rights as it has to do with whether should the Shraders repay the purchase price to the minor as well as it was based on previous common-law decisions. The final decision was appealed with the Shraders having to repay the full purchase price of