1. What are the facts? 2. What is the issues with a question? 3. Analystses 4. C

Question

1. What are the facts? 2. What is the issues with a question? 3. Analystses 4. Conclusion eaement is too fon of the parties alleged that the ample of the for of def contract law to allow for ticularly important terms, like price, to be implied when the circumstances warrant. some par- 257 S.W.3d 34 (Ct. App. Tx. 2008) Domingo v. Mitchell oworkers Betty Domingo and Brenda Mitchell often played the Texas Lottery together. and split their winnings equally. From time to time, Mitchell would purchas e the to pool thei lotery tickets prior to getting Domingo's money, and Domingo would promptly reimburse M ir money to purchase tickets Cindy Skidmore sent an e-mail to Mitchell asking if Mitchell was interested in joining a lotery group a Texas Limited Partnership, for the purpose of pooling money to play the lottery. On March 23 il to members of the group, including Mitchell, norifying them of a meeting the next week at a local Texas had formed LGroup, restaurant, during which members would pay their share into the pool and select numbers for the The e-mail also provided, "lilf there is someone else you want to invite (& you feel pretty sure they won't d Michell did not ask Skidmore if Domingo could participate in the April 2006 drawings. April 2006 lottery drawings. sometime after the March 23 e-mail, Mitchell invited her to participate in the LGroup for April 2006, According to Domingo, specifically to play Loto Texas an offered to cover for her and be reimbursed at a later time. d Mega Millions. When Domingo asked how much her contribution would have to be, Mitchell On March 30, Mitchell and other members of the group met at a restaurant to pay their share for the April 2 contribuae their mumbers Domingo was not present at this meeting. Mitchel for Domingo's share. Acconding to Mitchell's deposition testmony, she did not have enough money to cover Domingo's payment. l paid her $17 contribution, but she did not contribute 0,925,315.23. Domingo was On April 29,2006, one of the tickets purchased by LGroup was a winner in the amount of $2 acuded from any share of the winnings. As a result, she sued Mitchell for breach of contract. Mitchellfled a motion for sum- ary jdement, alleging among other things, that she had never made a valid offer to Domingo, so they could not have entered bhto a contractual relationship. The trial court granted summary judgment for Mitchell, and Domingo appealed.

Explanation / Answer

Answer:

1. What are the facts:

2. What is the issue with the question?

3. Analystes

4. Conclusion:

Thanks.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 1
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.