What Is The Case Curtis Vs Detroit Dillers

In the case of Curtis vs. Detroit Drillers, a breach of contract is what is at hand. The outstanding leadoff hitter for the Detroit Drillers, Curtis, signed a bonus in his contract, which stated, if he made 700 plate appearances he would receive a bonus of $150,000. The problem with this is that Curtis was benched just short of his 700th appearance for seemingly no reason, so Curtis is suing the Drillers for a breach of contract. In this case the plaintiff is Curtis, and the defendant would be the Detroit Drillers. In the case, Curtis had 696 plate appearances with two games left when the manager decided that Curtis would be put in a pinch-hitting role to allow younger players to show what they have for next season, especially because the

If this were the case it would seem like Curtis could have grounds to sue the Drillers based on breach of contract because they purposely tried to terminate it, but that is not exactly what happened. Instead of purposely benching Curtis, the Drillers had decided to give their young rookies a chance to play and prove themselves for next season. The team also had no grounds in the contract that established they had to play Curtis every game or any playing time at all, and it is up to the manager to decide things like this. Based on these facts I would rule in order of the Detroit Drillers simply because Curtis did not fulfill the 700 plate appearances, and there was no evidence of contract breach by the team to disallow him for completing this bonus. The team had grounds to bench a player when they deem necessary, especially late in the season to try and get new players in the lineup. This whole contract dispute could have been avoided by added

Kilroy was on vacation when his old college roommate asked him to throw out the first pitch, and while doing so he dislocated his shoulder, which caused him to lose the first 35 games of the season. In this case the defendant is James Kilroy and the plaintiff is the Oakland Ogres. In Kilroy’s contract it states that the player shall not play baseball for any other team during the offseason, or any impromptu or competitive game of football, baseball, softball and other athletic events. The Oakland Ogres believe that because Kilroy participated in this event in the offseason, he breached their contract and should be punished because of it. The Ogres believe it is a clear breach of the limitations that were set on his offseason to prevent something like this happening. However, Kilroy will say that this is not an actual breach of contract at all. Kilroy did dislocate his shoulder in a baseball related activity, but the contract clearly says he just couldn’t participate in an impromptu or competitive “game” of baseball. Kilroy did not participate in such an event, and instead the injury resulted just from an accident, which could have happened just as easy doing daily chores. In this case I have to side with the defendant because based on contract law, there was no actual breach of the contract at all.