------ Forwarded Message
From: <char.ayers@att.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:26:29 +0000
To: Charlene Ayers <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: What "all" came to be...: War of words and paranoia: Of course!: GrossmontUHSD application?: Quatum Meruit: Alpine's finest sued again...
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "Booklady" <book1@aabol.com>
To: <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: Re: War of words and paranoia: Of course!: GrossmontUHSD application?: Quatum Meruit: Alpine's finest sued again...
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 01:15:05 +0000
If I may be allowed to enter a small statement, without changing the original subject of this series. What this ranter indicates is that the First Amendment separates Church from State. It certainly does, but it also says that Congress (the government) may not "prohibit the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech..." While it says Congress shall not establish a religion, that means a state mandated religion, a situation the early settlers left behind in England. Yet the government (through the schools and courts) does deny the free exercise thereof every time it denies people (of all religions) the right to pray in public wherever they are at the time - a graduation ceremony or a basketball game. Unfortunately our founding fathers, of which some were my ancestors (who settled the Virginia colonies) could not possibly conceive what would come in today's world. They wanted freedom for all, without persecution, but they couldn't imagine what "all" would come to be.
Nancy Slaff
----- Original Message -----
From: char.ayers@att.net
To: Charlene Ayers <mailto:char.ayers@att.net>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 5:35 PM
Subject: War of words and paranoia: Of course!: GrossmontUHSD application?: Quatum Meruit: Alpine's finest sued again...
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: xxxxxx
To: char.ayers@att.net
Subject: Re: Of course!: GrossmontUHSD application?: Quatum Meruit: Alpine's finest sued again...
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:08:15 +0000
DIV { MARGIN: 0px }
This Ranter seems straight, but I am only vaguely familiar with James Hartline or his report... seems tabloid like and right of right in partisan politics agenda itself. To call Jim Kelly a Liberal Republican is laughable...he may be just right of the extreme right wing, but that leaves miles of real estate before one can be labeled "A liberal" or even a moderate Republican.
Kelly calls the Teachers Union a liberal group, Ha ... the vast majority of teachers in East County are conservative Republicans. Yes, left of Kelly but still far away from liberal. And School Boards are non-partisan elected positions... lest Kelly, Nehring, and their also right wing cohorts Schreiber and Udall wrestle with their war of words and paranoia... leave us be... get on private school boards and out of the public domain! And Bill Wells is a Skyliner... figures... the evangelicals are the power grabbers within themselves.
Seems to many that, Kelly, Schreiber, this Hartline person... they all are blind to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination, and just about every freedom the constitution was meant to provide under TJ's, the Adams's , Franklins', George Washington as they wrote it. And the lot that wrote the Federalist Papers, thus explained background giving great insight into their intent for our constitution.
Those founding fathers were Gods' children, very religious, but they understood the importance of separating church and State, keeping "politics out of public schools and church"... and keeping "church out of politics and public schools."
I'm a sensible Christian... floating in hope and grasping at reasonable conservative space... thinking both major political parties are controlled by extremist idiots. I'm appalled at the evangelical infighting that puts Kelly against Schreiber, just an example of evangelical power grabs and their destruction of the Republican party.
When does "one nation with liberty and justice for all" become the focus of our citizens' freedoms, and when will the discriminating wrath of the evangelical right understand that they can't mandate their bias on the open minded Christians and other religious denominations? Let God be their only true judge... I certainly can't understand enough to make any sense of their mess at GUHSD.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message ----
From: "char.ayers@att.net" <char.ayers@att.net>
To: Charlene Ayers <char.ayers@att.net>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 2:22:26 PM
Subject: Of course!: GrossmontUHSD application?: Quatum Meruit: Alpine's finest sued again...
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: xxxx
To: <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: RE: GrossmontUHSD application?: Quatum Meruit: Alpine's finest sued again...
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:58:55 +0000
Of course it matters who we elect. T Ryan¢s administration of GUHSD and Prop H was incompetent. The Board of Trustees proved incompetent too by exercising zero oversight (made abundantly clear by the Bond Advisory Committee¢s Finance Report).
Ryan became superintendent in part by virtue of church connections with trustee Kelly; who also knew Ryan from the undistinguished tenures of both of them in the County Office of Education. There was no rigorous ¡search¢ process to find a top-notch proven superintendent once Kelly and his cronies Cass and Wells decided Ward Granger had to go.
Some of the internecine church-connected stuff at play has been reported here: http://jameshartlinereport.blogspot.com/2006/10/san-diegos-political-wars-_116223135418945689.html.
From: char.ayers@att.net [mailto:char.ayers@att.net]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 10:46 AM
To: Charlene Ayers
Subject: GrossmontUHSD application?: Quatum Meruit: Alpine's finest sued again...
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: xxxx
To: char.ayers@att.net
Subject: Re: Quatum Meruit: Alpine's finest sued again...
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:16:31 +0000
Very interesting... "Quantum Meriut... Quasi Contract". I wonder how this legal concept would apply to Grossmont Union should they end up defaulting on their "Quasi Contract" (Prop H) with the public (voters) promising a new 12th high school?
The sad reality (in this case how do you hold a public entity, "GUHSD", responsible for management incompetence) is that courts would likely treat a school district with more latitude than a commercial entity or private business person. Taxpayers would essentially be taking legal action against themselves, since ultimately our taxes pay for their "GUHSD" mismanagement and fiscal irresponsibility!
Case in point,"It really does matter who we elect to represent us"... at GUHSD our elected trustees hired Terry Ryan.. who took Prop H from poor planning before he arrived at GUHSD to a state of total collapse during his tenure... and his staff aided and abetted in the cover up, and left overs seem to continue the cover-up post T Ryan... don't figure!
Let's trust new Supt. Collins can see the past injustices (incompetence's) and right the "Titanic" of school bond management screw-ups! He seems to be on the right track so far... if time doesn't run out before its' to late to fix things, hmmmm... maybe "Quasi Contract" taxpayer revolt!
XxXxXx
: )
----- Original Message ----
From: "char.ayers@att.net" <char.ayers@att.net>
To: Charlene Ayers <char.ayers@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 6:22:23 PM
Subject: Quatum Meruit: Alpine's finest sued again...
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: xxxxx
To: <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: RE: Alpine's finest sued again...
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:17:17 +0000
Great work Charlene!
Please keep us posted.
I'm certainly rusted up in Latin so I looked up the quantum meruit
phrase.
It seems to bail down to...you screwed someone and now have to pay.
Small wonder with these jerks. Wonder how many more will flare up?
xxxxx
quantum meruit
[Latin, As much as is deserved.] In the law of contracts, a doctrine by which the law infers a promise to pay a reasonable amount for labor and materials furnished, even in the absence of a specific legally enforceable agreement between the parties.
A party who performs a valuable service for another party usually enters into a written contract or agreement before performing the service, particularly when the party is in the business of performing that service. For instance, most professional roofers hired to repair a roof insist on having a formal agreement with the owner of the house before beginning the repairs. In the absence of an agreement or formal contract, the roofer may be unable to recover losses in court if the transaction goes awry. Quantum meruit is a judicial doctrine that allows a party to recover losses in the absence of an agreement or binding contract.
By allowing the recovery of the value of labor and materials, quantum meruit prevents the Unj ust Enrichment of the other party. A person would be unjustly enriched if she received a benefit and did not pay for it when fairness required that payment be made. Quantum meruit can be used to address situations where no contract exists or where a contract exists but for some reason is unenforceable. In such cases courts imply a contract to avoid an unjust result. Such contracts are called quasi contracts.
Quantum meruit also describes a method used to determine the exact amount owed to a person. A court may measure this amount either by determining how much the defendant has benefited from the transaction or by determining how much the plaintiff has expended in materials and services.
The doctrine of quantum meruit was developed in the seventeenth century by the royal Court of Chancery in England. This court worked apart from the common-law courts to g rant r elief that was due under general principles of fairness but could not be ob tained under the strict legal prec e dents of the common-law courts. The system of basing decisions on basic principles of fairness became known as Equity <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Equity> . The Chancery Court developed quantum meruit along with other equitable doctrines that allowed a person to recover or collect for other valuable acts performed without a contract, such as the delivery of goods or money. Some of the first cases of quantum meruit involved recovery by persons in so-called trades of common calling, such as innkeepers, tailors, blacksmiths, and tanners.
As service industries increased, so did claims for recovery under quantum meruit, and the doctrine was adopted by colonial courts. U.S. courts now apply quantum meruit principles in a wide variety of cases, including cases involving attorneys' fees, physicians' fee s, con struction work, government contracts, and even domestic rel ations suits for "palimon y. " Palimony is a form of financial support that is similar to Alimony <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Alimony> but arises out of a nonmarital relationship.
Courts have crafted four basic elements that the plaintiff must prove before she may recover under the doctrine of quantum meruit: (1) that valuable services were rendered; (2) that the services were rendered to the defendant; (3) that the services were accepted, used, and enjoyed by the defendant; and (4) that the defendant was aware that the plaintiff, in performing the services, expected to be paid by the defendant.
The case of Montes v. Naismith and Trevino Construction Co., 459 S.W.2d 691 (Tex. Civ. App. 1970), illustrates how quantum meruit works. In August 1968 Abraham Montes began oral negotiations with Abdon Perez regarding improvements Montes sought for h is homestead. Perez testified that Montes brought a cont ract to him more than once, but that the contract was never complete, and no contract was ever signed. Despite the lack of a contract, Perez arranged for the Naismith and Trevino Construction Company to do the work on Montes's house. Montes paid $1,800 to Perez, and Perez withdrew from the transaction.
Naismith and Trevino made improvements on Montes's homestead for a total value of $3,835.36, but Montes refused to pay for the improvements. Naismith and Trevino brought suit against Montes, arguing that even though they did not have a contract with Montes, they should be paid for their labor and the materials they used in making improvements to his house. The court agreed and entered judgment for Naismith and Trevino in the amount of $1,760, the amount of the services and materials provided by Naismith and Trevino less the amount Montes had paid to Perez. The court based its ruling on the theory of quantum meruit.
T he d oc trine of quantum meruit is contained in court d ecisio ns an d, to a lesser extent, in statutes. It can be a confusing doctrine: many courts mix quantum meruit with the similar principles of restitution and unjust enrichment. Restitution is a broad term that describes measures taken by a civil or criminal defendant to restore a victim to the status that he enjoyed before the defendant caused a loss or injury. Unjust enrichment is an equitable approach to civil relationships that covers more than just contractual situations. A civil plaintiff may recover under the doctrine of unjust enrichment by showing (1) that the plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) that the defendant appreciated or knew of the benefit; and (3) that, under the circumstances, it was unfair for the defendant to accept or retain the benefit without paying for it. Most courts consider quantum meruit a particular form of legal restitution that follows the basic restitutionary principle of preventing un jus t enrichment.
< /TBODY >
From: char.ayers@att.net
To: char.ayers@att.net
Subject: Alpine's finest sued again...
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:45:15 +0000
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: xxxxxx
To: "Charlene Ayers" <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: new lawsuit
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:41:54 +0000
Lecg, LLC. v. REI-NC, LLC.; Gonya Enterprises, Inc.; Paul Gonya; Kenneth Stroud; David Waitley
4/15/2008 37-2008-00082011 Complaint for breach of contract; promissory fraud; account stated; quantum meruit; declaratory relief. Defendants REI breached the agreement by failing to pay for services rendered by Mack Barclay and Lecg. Defendants have failed to pay the outstanding balance of over $172,000.00
------ End of Forwarded Message
No comments:
Post a Comment