Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, practice problems, reference materials, practice exams, textbook help and tutor support. Inc. Grocery, Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Does Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) apply to the contracts between Grocery, Inc. and its vendors? Do common law contracts apply? Explain your answer in detail. Your answer should compare and contrast law contracts and UCC Article 2 contracts. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 2 applies only to contracts for the sale of goods.
The definition of goods is defined as goods that are tangible, movable, or personal property. However, UCC Article 2 does not apply to real estate contracts or employment contracts. Common law contracts are for the sale of services or intangible items. UCC would only apply contracts that are established on actual sales and the way the sales are conducted. Contracts Grocery, Inc. would have with the vendors are normal contracts with only the shipping and payment terms using the UCC Article 2.
Common law contracts are made between two individual parties. If Tom is willing to allow Jeff to work with him for the summer, then there are no contracts being affected. There would be no common law contract either due to Jeff is not of majority age. He is still considered a minor resulting in he cannot sign contracts and be held liable for such contracts. Grocery, Inc. Renovation Who Wins? Explain your answer. An injunction is a court order prohibiting the other party from performing a certain act.
The petitioning party must show where if the injunction is not ordered, there will be irreparable damage or injury. A breach of contract occurs when one party fails to comply with a written legal contract. Specific performance is only considered when the act being performed is unique or rare. Grocery, Inc. must prove to where irreparable damage has occurred. This can be proven using the facts of the poor work provided by Company B in result of Company A sub-contracting Company B. Company A is in breach of contract due to they did not perform the renovation themselves.
If Grocery, Inc. had set blueprints of the renovations drawn up and the blue prints were specific to Company As work habit, it is considered a unique or rare act. If there was no provision in the agreement to where Company A had the right to delegate the duties of Company A to any other company, Company A needed to get written permission from Grocery, Inc. before sub-contracting Company B. Since Grocery, Inc. had no knowledge of the transfer to Company B, Company A is in violation of inferior performance and material breach.
Company A has no grounds for Commercial Impracticability due to the contract was signed and started prior to the increase in jobs. Also, once the six-month time limit was up Grocery, Inc. had the right to rescind the contract and only pay the fair market value of the work provided. Therefore, in my opinion Grocery, Inc. would win the case and Company A could be liable for the damages which Grocery, Inc. accrued and for the time frame the business was closed due to lack of work quality. Grocery, Inc. (Jeff) What are the possible outcomes? Explain your answer.
There are two possible outcomes of this case. The first thing to evaluate is the capacity of Jeff. If Jeff is under the majority age of 18, then Jeff can return the car to Steve and automatically void the contract. In the event of Jeff returning the car, Steve can perform an assessment to verify Jeff received some economic benefits for the use of the car for the six months. If Steve can verify this, Steve is entitled to an economic adjustment for the time period Jeff used the car. This may result in Jeff getting some of the money paid, or Steve can keep all the money and the car.
In this case, the end results could be in favor of Steve. If Jeff turns 18 during the time of possessing the car and does not avoid the contract in a reasonable time period, Steve is entitled to the balance of the car and awarded compensation for the cars market value from the time Jeff used the car. In this case, the end results would be in favor of Steve. Gap Filling Rule (Cereal, Inc. ) Analyze gap filling provisions of UCC Article 2 as they pertain to the terms of this contract. What rights or defenses, if does any, Cereal, Inc. have under contract law?
Analyze the remedies available to Grocery, Inc. and Cereal, Inc. Explain all answers in detail. Due to Grocery, Inc. sending a facsimile twelve days before delivery was sent, Grocery, Inc. has the right to reject the delivery of cereal that was sent due to it was not what was ordered from Cereal, Inc. Cereal, Inc. sent 15 cases of cereal to Grocery, Inc. s stores without calling Grocery, Inc. to notify them of the lack of variety of cereals. When the flood occurred, Cereal, Inc. should have notified Grocery, Inc. for further information on what Grocery, Inc. wanted done.
When there is a contract without all the details such as types of cereal or delivery locations to stores, gap filling provisions are in place provided by the UCC. Delivery in single lots or several lots, Absence of Specified Place for Delivery, Shipment by Seller, and Absence of Specific Time Provisions are some gap filling provisions Cereal, Inc. can put in place due to the contract does not state these provisions. Cereal, Inc. has the right to rescind the contract due to they cannot fulfill the contract needs.
Grocery, Inc. and Cereal, Inc. can come to an agreement to where Grocery, Inc. will accept the shipments, but they have the right to amend the contract to site specific cereals wanted. Harry and Tom: Breach of Contract Who wins? Explain your answer. Tom made the offer to Harry of selling his trains to Harry when Tom retires from Grocery, Inc. in two years. In those two years, Harry spent most of his savings to build a 2,000 sq. feet room to make room for the trains.
Tom heard about Harry selling his own trains and could have assumed Harry gave up on trains. Harry could have sold his trains to save enough money to buy Toms trains due to he valued Toms trains with more respect.
I think Harry can win the case due to promissory estoppel is defined where the promise actually relied on the promise, the promisees reliance was reasonably foreseeable to the promisor, and principles of equity and justice are served by providing compensation to the reliant party (Melvin, S. 2011). In this instance, Tom made the statement to where he would sell the trains to Harry, resulting in Harry selling his own collection and spending his savings to build an addition for Toms trains. Grocery, Inc. (Jason) Who bears the risk? Explain your answer.
Free On board (F. O. B.) does not apply to this contract of the sale of peaches to Grocery, Inc. from Jason due to there is no freight ship involved. F. O. B. only is available when an International transaction is occurring. Jason hired an independent trucker out of his own pocket to deliver the peaches to Grocery, Inc. The independent trucker was obligated to notify Jason as soon as the truck broke down for Jason to find another way to transport the peaches. Jason was then obligated to notify Grocery, Inc. of the lapse of transport and then maybe Grocery, Inc. could have helped find another way for the peaches to get to the store.
Therefore, Jason bears the risk for the peaches until the peaches are delivered to Grocery, Inc. in good shape. Supplier, Inc. (Bill) Is there a contract? If so, what are the terms? Explain your answer. Also, discuss the use of Supplier, Inc. s oral testimony at trial. Grocery, Inc. could not be held liable to uphold the contract signed by Bill due to he did not have the authority to sign such contract. The preprinted supply contract was held between Bill, a nonmerchant, and Supplier, Inc. , a merchant. Since Bill is considered a nonmerchant, the provisions in the boilerplate contract cannot be used in the contract.
The provisions can only be used when the contract is between two merchants. The oral testimony provided by Supplier, Inc. is not useful in this case due to they cannot use the words from Bill due to he is only an employee of Grocery, Inc. , not an owner or manager. Cheeseman. (2011) Chapter 16. Remedies for Breach of Traditional and Online Contracts. Reviewed on March 11, 2012 from http://wps. prenhall. com/bp_cheeseman_blaw_5/8/2291/586534. cw/393 8995/index. html Melvin, S. (2011) The Legal Environment of Business. Chapter six.