Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Hofmann v. American Dressler. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 4 page case summary on a case that concerns whether an artist should be paid for spec work. The writer summarizes the facts of the case, procedural history, the holding, the rationale of the court and the disposition. No bibliography is offered.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khhvamd.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
a catalogue of their merchandise. The printing concern, i.e., Rea, subsequently contacted the plaintiff, Hofmann, a graphic artist, to investigate this request further and provided Hofmann with a letter of
introduction to the defendant, American Dressler. This letter of introduction gave the defendant the impression that Hofmann was directly employed by Rea, or at least a business associate. The plaintiff
and defendant discussed a proposed format for the catalogue using general language and Hofmann suggested that a sample catalogue or "dummy" should be devised before offering a final estimate on
the cost of producing the proposed catalogue (Hofmann v. American Dressler). The plaintiff told the defendant that the cost of this catalogue would be $800 and the defendant agreed to
the submission of the dummy catalogue. The plaintiff proceeded to produce the dummy catalogue without first informing Rea of this agreement. The plaintiff devoted considerable time to this project,
creating sketches of the proposed catalogue pages and ordering some necessary electroplates. However, the court documentation notes that the plaintiff was specifically told by the defendant that the defendant wanted
a precise estimate of expenses before the defendant would consider that a binding contract had been made. The dummy catalogue was completed. The client, i.e., the defendant, approved it
and the plaintiff took it to Rea for production along with a final estimate of $785. Rea then told the defendant that, in this firms opinion, the "catalogue as
planned was not correct advertising" and the defendant subsequently reversed the previous decision to accept the catalogue and rejected it based on the grounds that the cost of the production
was too great (Hofmann v. American Dressler). The plaintiff then brought suit against the defendant in order to recover the cost of the services rendered to produce the dummy catalogue
...