Daniel Yerelian
MBAA 601.01
Dr. Arthur Gross-Schaefer
January 31, 2012
Case Study 1: Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel and Casino 109 F. Supp. 2d 324
Statement of Facts: Rena Gottlieb is a member of the Tropicana diamond club. As a member she swipes her card when she gambles, allowing the Casino to track her movements and optimize marketing toward her. Diamond club members were given one free spin per day on the “Fun House Million Dollar Wheel Promotion” with the chance to win a grand prize of $1 million dollars. Ms. Gottlieb claims she played and the wheel landed on the grand prize. Immediately an employee swiped another card which resulted in the wheel landing on a pair of show tickets. Ms. Gottlieb is suing for breach of contract and Tropicana has moved for summary judgment.
Case History: This is the initial trial.
Main Issue: Does participation in Tropicana “Million Dollar Wheel” constitute consideration with regards to the contract of the $1 million award.
Answer to Question: Ms. Gottlieb did provide adequate consideration to form a contract with Tropicana.
Reasoning by Court: Reinforced by comparable cases the judge determined that by traveling to the casino, waiting in line and having to partake in the Diamond club adequate consideration had been me.
Final Result: Motion for summary judgment on the contract claim denied in favor of
Ms. Gottlieb.

Case Study 2: Heye v. American Golf Corporation, Inc. 80 P.3d 495
Statement of Facts: Ms. Heye worked for a club managed by American Golf
Corporation (AGC). In the handbook she was given she signed her acknowledgment that binding arbitration would be used to resolve all disputes and that she was waiving all rights to pursue claims in court. The acknowledgment also allowed for the immediate termination without notice or reason. She worked about 8 months before she sued ACG.
Case History: Ms. Heye sued ACG in January 2000. ACG wanted to compel arbitration per the signed agreement. The court initially granted this motion, but this was reversed after Heye filed for reconsideration. AGC appealed.
Main Issue: Does the contract contain sufficient consideration from both parties to be valid?
Answer to Question: The contract does not contain sufficient consideration to be valid.
Reasoning by Court: ACG, according to the contract, is able to amend and change anything in the contract. Since ACG is free to selectively abide by its promise to arbitrate, making the case of an illusory promise.
Final Result: Denial of motion to compel arbitration, in favor of Heye.

Case Study 3: Ross v. May Company 800 N.E.2d 210
Statement of Facts: Mr. Ross started work for the May company in 1969 where he was given a handbook describing particular steps that had to be taken before an employee could be fired. In 1987, May published a new handbook of disclaimers
After working for 40 years Mr. Ross was suspended then fired for inappropriate behavior. Mr. Ross sued because he was not afforded the procedure described in the
1968 handbook.
Case History: Trial court dismissed Ross’s claim. Ross has appealed
Main Issue: Are the contractual promises made by the May co in 1968 still valid or was there sufficient consideration with respect to the amendments in 1981 that the promises are no longer valid.
Answer to Question: There was not sufficient consideration granted to modify the original contract.
Reasoning by Court: The newly published handbook took away certain advantages in Ross’s original contract without compensation or bargaining. The benefits granted in
1990 were for all employees and deemed not linked to the new handbook.
Final Result: Dismissal of claim reversed in favor of Ross.

Case Study 4: Skebba v. Kasch 724 N.W.2d 408
Statement of Facts: Skebba was going to leave the company for another position.
Kasch, the owner, bargained with Skebba and got him to stay on the condition that if the company was sold he would receive $250,000. This was never put in writing. 6 years later when the company was sold Skebba was not given the $250k. Kasch claims there had never been such an agreement. The case then went to trial
Case History: Jury found there was no contract. They did find that a promise had been made on which he had relied to damages of $250,000. They ruled against Skebba on the grounds that applicable case law did not allow the court to order Kasch to pay.
The claim was that Skebba could not prove actual damages, because the compensation from the other job could not be determined.
Main Issue: Can the damages to Skebba be determined?
Answer to Question: Yes
Reasoning by Court: The loss has nothing to do with what could have been earned at another job as income from the new job was not part of the calculated offer. In this case specific performance is the necessary enforcement mechanism to prevent injustice.
Final Result: Reversed and remanded in favor of Skebba