• Cancel the contract.  Whether or not the buyer cancels, it may recover what it has paid.

• Buy substitute goods ("cover"), and collect the difference between the contract price and the cost of the substitute goods.  The buyer may also collect any incidental and consequential damages.  The buyer's damages are reduced by any expenses saved by buyer as a result of the seller's breach.

• Incidental damages include expenses reasonably incurred in inspection, receipt, transportation and care and custody of goods rightfully rejected; any commercially reasonable charges, expenses or commissions in connection with purchasing substitute goods; and any other reasonable expense incident to the delay or other breach.

• Consequential damages include any profits which the buyer could have made by reselling the contracted-for goods had they been delivered in the proper condition.  However, these damages must be proved with reasonable certainty, and must be shown to have been reasonably foreseeable at the time of the contract.

• If the buyer chooses not to "cover", it may collect the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time the buyer learned of the breach.  Any incidental and consequential damages may be added to this amount, less expenses saved by buyer as a result of seller's breach.  If the contracted goods are considered "unique", the buyer may be entitled to a court order requiring the seller to produce and deliver the goods.

• How can we resolve a disagreement about what a Will means?

• What can an Executor do if she thinks someone is improperly holding estate assets?

• What can a Beneficiary do if he thinks the executor is not properly managing the estate?

• Do these same procedures apply to Trusts?

These rules apply to trusts created in Wills, but the most common Trusts these days are non-probate documents.  Disputes over non-probate Trusts may not be litigated in Probate Court.  However, there are similar actions that may be brought in the general court system (as opposed to the specialized system of the Probate Court) to interpret Trusts and enforce a Trustee's duties. 

Anti-discrimination laws work by establishing "protected classes" of people, and prohibiting discrimination against people in those classes.  Race, sex, religion, disability, and age are typical protected classes, but, as we see with sexual orientation issues, different jurisdictions can add various distinctions at different times.  For example, one of the issues around ENDA, the federal law, is whether "gender identity" will be part of the protected class.  The exemptions from the laws also differ:  the proposed federal law contains an exemption for religious organizations; Ohio's proposed law exempts religious groups and employers with fewer than 15 employees; the new Cleveland rule (the only rule discussed here that is actually in effect) exempts (1) employers with fewer than 4 persons (not counting family members), (2) religious organizations "whose membership or services are limited to persons of a single religious faith [sic]," (3) religious educational institutions, (4) private social or fraternal societies, and (5) "any type of employment where religion, religious creed or nationality would usually and normally be considered an essential qualification for employment."  The Cleveland ordinance also requires employers to provide reasonable access to adequate facilities (e.g., bathrooms and showers) that are not inconsistent with an employee's gender identity, which is established either at the time of initial employment or upon notification to the employer that the employee has or is undergoing gender transition. 

New laws reflect changing social attitudes, but also drive them.  Early anti-discrimination legislation set brother against brother.  Today, employment lawyers with long experience remember a time when employers treated charges of race discrimination with great seriousness, yet pooh-poohed sex discrimination plaintiffs.  These days, of course, sex discrimination and harassment are both treated seriously.  We might expect the same social evolution with gay rights.  A recent NYT article (click here for link) noted that same-sex marriage supporters have been disappointed by recent setbacks in state-by-state efforts to codify the freedom to marry, but also recognized the trend of smaller, positive changes, including local nondiscrimination ordinances. 

In light of the new law, Cleveland employers should amend their policies and train supervisors to account for the new protected classes, and, in doing so, have the chance to be ahead of the curve.