PT-A and PT-B?
Read the threads. Here are my comments and concerns.
PTB: feeling uneasy because no body , if any, brought up Quorum. At least I didn't read anyone on threads discussing it as a possible immunity. Obviously I feel Like I missed something. I thought CAll 1 raised two issues, Quorum and Ultra Vires.
Immunity, Can City claim an Immunity?
Quorum: the case in Harim had facts that City Attorney needed to sign and approve proposal, plus City Council had to approve. Our facts stated that yes, Bryant signed and approved, but City council had not yet decided fully on the matter. They referenced Charter required their approval. They had more questions than answers , and even asked Blanchard specifically whether the job could get done in the fiscal year being that the meeting took place in August, and the charter specifically required that ...well something like everyone needed to approve. Did anybody notice that attorney left the meeting early? was that a big deal? or was this nothing.
It was noted by the mayor hosting the meeting, and was noted in the record, before Mayor sort of rushed a close to the meeting because he had another matter. Was a little vague, but seemed they procedurally didn't follow what would seem to be a proper "final" vote. Since nobody has spoken about this on the thread I probably was chasing a none issue. But it seemed like one given the transcript was entirely from the City Council Meeting, specifically about Blanchards proposal. Was that enough for immunity? Maybe not,
Ultra Vires: My understanding of Hiram interpretation of Ultra Vires doctrine had more to do with whether the City had enough control and influence over the subject matter that given such lack of control would render City immune from liability. This would not be my definition of Ultra Vires, but I fairly think it was more or less the gist of the doctrine, that if Blanchard was more in control, so much so , that it would cause incompetence among the City Council enough so that they would be immune from being forced to create contracts that would ultimately hurt the tax payers.
The Dissent in Harim said , wait a second, if we cant honor contracts, this would unjustly enrich one party over the other regardless if they are the government. So this dissent was pretty strong language given the fact that this was an objective paper and a court in equity would simply not ignore the essence of the contract whether or not the City was incompetent on making the necessary judgement for approval.
So I can see were Harim was the starting point for discussing the only possible out for City, but as we can see, Calls 2 and 3, layout clearly that Blanchard met all the requirements for Quantum Merit.
Can Blanchared satisfy the elements of Quantum Merit?
The lyman case did not award the land owner who , at her own expense, laid out pipe lines for water usage, that City later used and charged her for it. Ther claim for Quantum Merit was denied because she could not satisfy each of the elements laid out by that Supreme Court Case 1958. I believe it was there not to discuss or argue the facts in the case but to apply the 4 elements, namely did Blanchard provide services, was City aware, did City acknowledge, and something else maybe damages. Anyway I think this was the easier of the three calls.
What Damages if Blanchard were to succeed on a claim of Quantum Merit?
the appellate court remanded the trail courts decision for awarding only Actual Damages and disclaiming Materials, Overhead, and something else, but in the end favored the plaintiff in a claim for Quantum Merit for all the work the plaintiff performed. The city baseball park was a private function, but I focused on just the damages claim for the work performed. In our case while performance was a bit complex and unassuming because it involved reviewing applications, interviewing candidates for subcontracting work, and included materials , it was nonetheless services required for the job and was fully performed and not paid for. At least this was my take. Yes there was a completed contract that had already been performed , but it too had already been paid for. This performance related to the proposal for which was arguably approved but nonetheless performed.
Concluded given that performance already provided, and new Mayor elected, and water treatment a necessary health safety matter, instead of litigation maybe further discussions, proposals on a new agreement incorporating the work already done because City because they did not qualify for the grant, but could continue to pursue .. Something along those lines.
Again, I could have missed some or much of this entirely.
As for PTA the Demand Letter.
I used the same format in the facts. As I recall there was only one case and the rest were statutes. This sort of alerted me to use a lot of the facts. The Memo also stated use the facts. So I laid out D's first , Second and Third Concerns, and summarized (even though it was a demand letter) that we shared those concerns and would be better to avoid litigation but were prepared if push came to shove.
The general issue was whether the USP the non-nurse school staff , including parents and others could administer insulin to students. Struggle recalling all the facts, basically D's demand letter was week, they misquoted the Gov Bill 48 claiming that he didn't approve that the SMA allowed testing. The case confirmed that he merely did not approve because there was enough overwhelming support to allow IDEA to permit administration of the insulin by Non Nurses. The Boards Advisory supported this notion too because Nurses were in short supply, like 350 thousand per the several million students diagnosed with diabetes etc..
One concern, (of many) PTA
I "concluded" after each segment (example
Is this okay for a Demand Letter ?
Im thinking its not. I just couldn't get away from that unspoken rule about concluding after main each issue. Just wondering if that applies to demand letters. Dont think so ,oh well this is what I remember.