Question

In the case of Hammer v. Breidenbach, 31 Mo. 49 (1860), Mr. Breidenbach was hired to brew beer in a cave for his employer, at a salary of $1,000 per year. The contract between the Bavarian Brewery (which would later become Anheuser-Busch) and Mr. Breidenbach specified that any violation of the agreement would result in the breaching party paying the sum of $500 to the injured party. Because the cave was dangerous, Mr. Breidenbach refused to enter it to make the beer, and his employer demanded the $500. An appellate court later determined that Mr. Breidenbach should not be required to enter the cave and endanger himself, and he was not required to pay the $500 "penalty." In which of the following modern cases could this case act as an appropriate precedent?

A. A case where an employee was terminated for not attending work in a "sick" mold-infested building.
B. A case where a caterer refuses to enter a condemned building to provide food to a Halloween party.
C. A case where a liquidated (pre-determined) damages payment in a contract was excessively disproportionate to the injury.
D. A case where an employer was sued for forcing employees to work in unsafe conditions.

Answer 1

d. A case where a liquidated (pre-determined) damages payment in a contract was excessively disproportionate to the injury.

Step-by-step explanation:

Law student

Answer 2

B. A case where a caterer refuses to enter a condemned building to provide food to a Halloween party.

Step-by-step explanation:

The doctrine of legal precedent (stare decisis) is used in most common law systems as a way to provide stability and predictability to legal decisions. Under this doctrine, a legal case can set a "precedent" that creates a principle or a rule. This rule is then used in future cases that significantly resemble the previous one in terms of context and facts.