Grimes v

.docx

School

West Coast University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

220

Subject

Law

Date

May 15, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by GeneralRiverRabbit5 on coursehero.com

1 Isaac Juarez Professor Samuels BLAW280 26 October 2023 Grimes v. Young Life Facts: Olivia Grimes passed away at the Young Life-owned Carolina Point Camp after she went on a three-person giant swing with fatal consequences. As Olivia's personal representative, Phillip Wade Grimes files a lawsuit against Young Life and Inner Quest, the business in charge of providing the materials and building the enormous swing. Inner Quest counterclaimed against Young Life, claiming that Young Life ought to hold Inner Quest harmless from any judgment. Young Life contends that their contract covered more than just the materials; it also covered the construction of the enormous swing. Each supported their claim. Young Life and Inner Quest both stated contact. Issue: Is there sufficient proof and evidence, enough to prove that Young life must give Inner Quest with indemnity? Rule: UCC "Uniform Commercial Code." It is a broad body of legislation that oversees a wide range of business operations and transactions in the US. Application: P, acting in his capacity as the personal representative of Olivia Grimes' estate, began lawsuits against Young Life, Inc. and Inner Quest on behalf of the plaintiff. P argues on the liability of Young Life for the accident that tragically claimed the life of Olivia Grimes. P's argument centered on the question of whether Young Life was obligated to indemnify Inner Quest in accordance with the contract they executed regarding the construction of the three-person gigantic swing.
2 D argued that the primary objective of the contract was to procure services that were relevant to the development and assembly of the swing. In light of this, D argued that common law, and not the Uniform Commercial Code, ought to govern the contract. D attempted to evade indemnification liability by asserting that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) should not apply and that the contractual indemnification clause should lack enforceability. The court found that the contract was for construction services, not products. The court also considered Inner Quest's business, which focused on challenge course design, construction, and operation rather than equipment sales.The court found discrepancies between parties' inherent material values. Young Life said that the supplies cost $12,000 of the $36,000 total, whereas Inner Quest claimed that the support poles and swing bar cost $11,900. However, the court noted that Inner Quest did not break down the support poles' cost, which included both their purchase and installation. Therefore, the court considered assessing these components' inherent value speculative.The court ruled that the contract was principally a services contract with products sales ancillary to those services. Thus, the UCC was inapplicable. Young Life won summary judgment while Inner Quest lost it in the court's final order. Conclusion: Young Life's motion for summary judgment was granted, while Inner Quest's motion for summary judgment was denied.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help