Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
Smythe ordered a freezer at that price in that time period, but Lasco replied that it had changed the price to $450. Smythe claimed that Lasco could not change the price. Smythe was correct. Lasco's letter was an offer to Smythe, which specifically stated a period for acceptance. Smythe accepted the terms of the offer within that time period. Therefore, the contract was binding and Lasco had no right to change the terms of the offer.
6. Valley Trout Farms, a merchant, ordered fish food from Rangen, a merchant. Rangen sent an invoice indicating that it would charge a late fee for any unpaid bills. Although Valley did not pay, it also did not object to the late fee. Rangen sued for the unpaid bill and the late fees. Valley's position was that it had not agreed to be liable for late charges and therefore was not liable for the late charges. There is a different standard for merchants than there is for non-merchant purchasers. By accepting the merchandise with the invoice, Valley assented to Rangen's conditions and was liable for the late fees.
12. Richard, a retailer of video equipment, telephoned Craft Appliances and ordered a $1,000 videotape recorder for his business. Craft accepted Richard's order and sent him a copy of the purchase memorandum that stated the price, quantity, and model ordered and that was stamped "order accepted by Craft." Richard did not sign or return the memorandum and refused to accept delivery of the recorder when Craft delivered it to him three weeks later. Craft sued Richard. Richard raised the statute of frauds as a defense. However, both parties are merchants. The statute of frauds does not apply if industry standard dispenses with the necessity of a writing to form a contract. Therefore, if the industry standard was to place telephone orders and rely on confirmatory memorandum, Craft would be able to recover from Richard.
4. Helen Thomas contracted to purchase a pool heater from Sunkissed Pools. The purchase price included installation, but Sunkissed left the heater in the driveway without installing it. Thomas was unable to move it and could not get a response from Sunkissed. The heater was later stolen. Who was responsible for the cost of the stolen heater depended on the contract between Thomas and Sunkissed. The contract specified that Sunkissed was responsible for the installation of the heater, not just the delivery. Sunkissed breached its contract by leaving the heater in a place where it was later stolen, therefore Sunkissed was responsible for the cost of the heater.
6. A thief stole a car and sold it to a good-faith purchaser for value. The good faith purchaser sold it to another buyer, who also purchased in a good faith and value. The original owner of the car sued the second purchaser for the car. The second purchaser argued that he bought the car in good faith from a good faith seller.
An owner's interest in property defeats claims by all other parties interested in the property, including good-faith purchasers for value. The original owner would have been entitled to possession of his car.
7. B used a bad check to purchase a used automobile from a dealer. B took the automobile to an auction, where a good faith buyer purchased the car. When B's check was dishonored, the dealer brought suit against the part that purchased the automobile at the auction. The dealer was not entitled to reclaim the automobile. The purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for value. Furthermore, the purchaser did not have the obligation to investigate the purchase between B. And the dealer. The dealer was the party with the ability to investigate B's ability to pay and the validity of B's check.
15. Brown Sales ordered goods from Eberhard Manufacturing Co. The contract did not contain any agreement about who would bear the risk of loss or any shipping terms. The seller placed the goods on board a common carrier with instructions to deliver the goods to Brown. While in transit, the goods were lost. Eberhard bore the risk of loss. Absent an agreement on shipping terms or risk of loss, the general rule is that a seller bears the risk of loss up until the time that a buyer takes possession. Giving the goods to a standard carrier is…[continue]
"Sisters Ruth And Stella Owned" (2005, November 11) Retrieved December 4, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/sisters-ruth-and-stella-owned-70411
"Sisters Ruth And Stella Owned" 11 November 2005. Web.4 December. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/sisters-ruth-and-stella-owned-70411>
"Sisters Ruth And Stella Owned", 11 November 2005, Accessed.4 December. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/sisters-ruth-and-stella-owned-70411
Ruth and Stella were sisters, who owned a house as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Ruth sold her half interest to Roy. Stella died, and Roy claimed the entire property. However, Roy was not entitled to the property. Joint tenants each possess an undivided interest in real property. Unlike tenants in common, joint tenancy comes with certain restrictions, including the right of survivorship. However, one of the other restrictions