;s total damages alleged in his complaint exceeded $75,000 at the time, the case was removed.There are several different topics that must be looked at when dealing with this case, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. It is illegal for a company to discriminate or terminate an employee for no specified reason when under a written valid agreement or contract. These two parties, Greip and Yamaha, did have a valid binding contract since there was an agreement, consideration, contractual capacity, and legality. The question is whether which party, Greip or Yamaha, breached the contract. “Breach of contract is defined as the failure, without legal excuse, of a promisor to perform the obligations of the contract (West’s p.201).” Greip alleges that Yamaha’s termination of his employment was in violation of the terms of his written Employment Agreement. Those terms provided that either party could terminate the Agreement for any reason by giving 60 days notice to the other party. The agreement did not provide for immediate termination, which occurred. Greip argued that his termination was improper since he was not warned beforehand that his behavior at the banquet could result in immediate termination. Fundamental principles of contract law gave Yamaha the legal right to terminate Greip’s employment under these outrageous circumstances. This is where the concept of social responsibility helps to determine who exactly was in breach of contract. Yamaha, as a worldwide corporation in manufacturing and retail, have a responsibility to its consumers, competition, and fellow employers. That responsibility is to uphold a respectable reputation in it product’s, services, and everyday business interactions. Employees also have a responsibility to their employer’s in carrying out duties for the company in the ways that company see fit. All employees owe a duty of loyalty, perfor...
