Case Study of Bartomeli v. Bartomeli 783 A.2d 1050
Uploaded by rapp2043 on Feb 10, 2009
Thomas Bartomeli (hereinafter the plaintiff) joined his brother Raymond Bartomeli (hereinafter the defendant) in founding a construction company. In 1983 the two brothers incorporated the company; however the Plaintiff never owned shares in the company. Both parties contributed individual assets to the company and jointly signed notes to acquire certain equipment that was stored on the Plaintiff’s property. In 1991 the Defendant became dissatisfied with the Plaintiff’s work performance and decided the Plaintiff should be removed as secretary of the corporation. Months later the Plaintiff made a request to have a blank check entrusted to him from the company’s secretary. When the Defendant became aware of the Plaintiff’s request, he terminated the Plaintiff’s employment with the company. The Plaintiff then attempted to reach palatable terms between both him and the Defendant as to a division of company assets, but an agreement could not be reached. The Plaintiff then filed suit against the company for breach of contract of partnership.
Issue of Law
Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the corporation owes a duty to the Plaintiff to extend a division of assets from the company to the Plaintiff?
In what capacity did the two parties serve together within the corporation for which the Plaintiff’s employment was terminated?
Is there sufficient evidence to show the Defendant was liable in breaching any contract for which the Plaintiff alleges?
Rule of Law
1. “Pleadings have their place in our system of jurisprudence. While they are not held to the strict and artificial standard that once prevailed, we still cling to the belief, even in these iconoclastic days, that no orderly administration of justice is possible without them… The purpose of the complaint is to limit the issues to be decided at the trial of the case and is calculated to prevent surprise.”
2. “A Plaintiff may not allege one cause of action and then recover on another. Facts found but not averred cannot be the basis for recovery.”
3. “[T]o form a contract, generally there must be a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange between two or more parties.
4. “[The] agreement must be definite and certain as to its terms and requirements.... [It] requires a clear and definite promise.... A court may, however, enforce an agreement if the missing terms can be ascertained, either from the express terms or by fair implication.... Thus, an agreement, previously...