Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley
Abstract
This paper provides a brief and extensive summary of a case between Hallmark Cards Inc. and Murley. Under the paper, the case revolves around a particular breach of contract, which involved accuse of Murley of disclosing relevant data to Recycled Paper Greetings Company. At first, Murley agreed to a leverage agreement with Hallmark Cards Inc. in exchange for a severance payment worth $735,000, among other benefits that comes with the severance payment. However, with this in mind, Hallmark Cards Inc. went to court to seek the compensation which the court granted in a court ruling with a verdict that the compensation needed to go through between the two parties involved.
Hallmark Cards Inc. won again after disclosing conclusive evidence against Murley when he appealed. The evidence included some previously deleted information by Murley. Besides this case, the paper also presentspresents various remedies thatthat were involved in breach of contracts. This remedies include suing for specific action, injunctions, termination of contracts, suing for compensation and qu,antum meruit. Nonetheless, the choice of remedy id purposely depends on the affected party. More so, the aggrieved party has an opportunity to be compensated if they choose to go to court with tangible evidence.
Introduction
From 1999 to 2002, Murley worked at Hallmark Cards, Inc. as the vice president of marketing. During this period, her work and purpose in the company was on wereducts, advertising, and research and business developments. In addition to this, Murley had all the access to Hallmark Cards, Inc. confidential data like financial information, market research and bu,siness plans. However, in the year 2002, Hallmark Cards, Inc. corporate restructure eliminated Murley,. As a result, Murley and Hallmark Cards, Inc. entered into a separation agreement. (Cohen, 2005)
Initiation of the separation agreement constituted to herparture from Hallmark Cards, Inc. In accordaaccordance separation agreement, Murley was to seize from working in any greeting card or gift industry for a peris. The agreement terms included not retaining any business records or documents from Hallmark Cards, Inc. more s,o disclose any form of confidential data pertaining Hallmarto k Cards, Inc. Whatsoever, Murley to release any kind of claim on Hallmark Cards, Inc. which arose after her elimination in the firm. In an agreement, Murley agreed to accept a severance payment of $735,000 from Hallmark Cards, Inc. including COBRA benefits and other tax leverages for two years from Hallmark Cards, Inc., and more so reinstatement service. (Rowan, 2012)
Upon expiration of the separation agreement, Murley entered into an employment contract with Recycled Paper Greetings (RPG) with a starting salary of $125,000. In her work life, Murley admitted to having disclosed some confidential information about Hallmark Cards, Inc. to Recycled Paper Greetings (RPG). Part of this confidential information included the industry research analysis done by Hallmark Cards, Inc. and consumer buying process methodology used by Hallmark Cards, Inc. Surprisingly, Hallmark Cards, Inc. was not aware of this disclosure by Murley until RPG was bought by the American greetings. Before this disclosure, American greeting felt that it was important that Hallmark Cards, Inc. needed to review to what extend the confidential information was reviewed to RGP and Hallmark Cards, Inc. needed to record RGP as a third party as of no confidential information was left held by RGP. After discovering several Hallmark Cards, Inc. documents in RGP’s records, Hallmark Cards, Inc. went ahead and filed a suit against Murley and the court came to an understanding and gave the jury instruction in conjunction to the disclosed evidence: “If you should find that a party willfully destroyed evidence in order to prevent its being presented in this trial, you may consider such destruction in determining what inferences to draw from the evidence or facts in this case. You may, but are not required to, assume that the contents of the files destroyed would have been adverse, or detrimental to the Defendant” (Miller, 2016). Whatsoever, Murley was not contented with the jury discussion and so she appealed.
Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley
Considering a similar case, Stevenson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co, it was made clear by the court that in any case entailing of the alleged evidence is putrefaction, then the court may reconsider and issue a new adverse inference instruction. First, if a piece of evidence linked to a case is intentionally destroyed, then it should be indicated as a desire to conceal the truth. Nonetheless, there should be a prejudice as far as the opposing party is concerned. During Murley’s objection trial, the court advised the jury that if they discovered that the confidential information disclosed by Murley involving Hallmark Cards, Inc. was destroyed by Murley intentionally, then the information of the evidence would be inferred (Miller, 2016)
Additionally, Murley’s instruction would have adverse to her. In addition to this, Murley contended that the instruction by the court was not correct since the instructions were given outside the precondition by the courts finding (Cohen, 2005)
Remedies for Breach of Contract
Individuals across the universe enter into agreements for specific reasons. In major cases, before signing the agreement, there are binding agreements which are put in place to signify and satisfy involved parties and acceptance to abide by the set regulations in the contract/agreement. A breach of contract results to termination or break of the agreement by both parties. Breach of contract comes about when one party involved in the contract decides to break the set of regulations which were put in place when signing the agreement. A breach of contract can be legally address in some of common ways like:
Contract Recession
A party involved to a contract can choose not to undertake any kind of obligations as expected in the contract after a breach of contract by the other involved party. In doing so, the willing party or rather the aggrieved party may rescinds the entire contract and cease to bind them (Rowan, 2012)
Sue for particular obligations
In minor cases, the aggrieved party may refuse compensation from the other party when a contract is breached. And so, they may opt to do what is referred to as invokement of the authority to compel the other party to undertake mandate as dictated by the agreement. In this case, the party which was involved in breaching the contract or agreement is required by the court to abide to the contracts rules and regulations through the involved contract (Katz, 2005)
Suing for damages
The party which is affected by the breach of contract or broken promises has the right to sue the other party. According to laws, the purpose of a case is to compensate all the cost incurred or damages during adhering of the breached contract (Katz, 2005) (Rowan, 2012)
Quantum Meruit
In some cases, a party may want to be compensated all the duties before contract breach or before the termination of the contract. In the event of such a case, a party can be prevented to perform duties in accordance’s to the existing contract. In case of this, the amount to be compensated should be reasonable to complete the service offered before the breach of contract (Shavell, 2005)
Conclusion
Basically, Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley was ruled based on the tangible evidence which was presented during trial and hearing of the case. That is, the confidential information related to Hallmark Cards, Inc. which Murley deleted were supposed to distort and more so clear evidence which was supposed to be part of the trial. From this, there are different forms of remedies when breach of contract happens and can be utilized depending with the wish of the aggrieved party.
Reference
Cohen, N. M. (2005). comparative remedies for breach of contract (Vol. 5). Hart Publishing.
Katz, A. W. (2005). Remedies for breach of contract under the CISG. International Review of (Vol. 25).
Miller, R. L. (2016). Business Law Today, Comprehensive. . Cengage learning.
Rowan, S. (2012). Remedies for Breach of Contract: A Comparative Analysis of the protection of performance. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Shavell, S. (2005). Specific performance versus damages for breach of contract: An. Tex. L. rev.