Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … decision was in favor of the plaintiff, McCalif Grower Supplies, Inc. (McCalif). The court ordered the defendant, Wilbur Reed (Reed) to pay McCalif's invoice for the poinsettas. However, Reed appealed, and won the repeal. The court ordered a reverse and remand for damages made in the initial counterclaim. The appellate decision was made based on consequential damages due to seller's breach related to perfect tender requiring that, "the seller deliver goods in conformity with the terms of the contract," (text p. 513). The perfect tender rule protects the buyer, which is why the appellate court made its decision to reverse and remand. According to the perfect tender rule, "if goods or tender fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer/lessee has the right to accept the goods, reject the entire shipment, or accept part and reject part," (text p. 513).
In this case, the buyer, Reed, sued for non-delivery or repudiation (Mccalif Grower Supplies Inc. v. Reed, 1995). The court focused on the buyer's right to non-delivery and states, "The record demonstrates that Reed accepted a portion of the commercial units of poinsettias and rejected the rest. The record further demonstrates, without contradiction, that Reed notified McCalif within 24 hours," (Mccalif Grower Supplies Inc. v. Reed).
Moreover, the courts point to issues regarding warranty of the item. "Warranty when thing cannot be examined by buyer. One who sells or agrees to sell merchandise inaccessible to the examination of the buyer thereby warrants that it is sound and merchantable," (Mccalif Grower Supplies Inc. v. Reed). The botched delivery was deemed to be incidental damages. Therefore, it did not matter that Reed acquired compensation from...
v. Reed.
Reference
Mccalif Grower Supplies Inc. v. Reed (1995). Retrieved online: http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19950725_0000146.MT.htm/qx
Chapter 24, Question 3
The Inn Between v Remanco Metropolitan case relates to two legal issues, that of nonconforming goods and that of the system maintenance agreement/contract for nonreturn of the system. UCC Sections 2-601 and 2A-519 "allow the buyer or lessee to reject the goods," and moreover, the buyer has the right to "obtain cover or cancel the contract," (text p. 536). The UCC also covers buyers wishing to revoke acceptance of nonconforming goods, in sections 2-608 and 2A-517. The buyer can also sue for damages under UCC Sections 2-607, 2-714, and 2A-519, so long as the buyer gave the seller reasonable notice.
The courts ruled firmly in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $8,405, representing the initial cost of the computer system only. The courts also dismissed the counterclaims made by Remanco, related to the unpaid maintenance and non-return of the system. "The Court concludes that as the Remanco equipment was not in good operating condition, Remanco did not perform its obligations under the Agreement. Thus, Remanco cannot be paid for non-performance," (Inn Between v Remanco). However, the courts do order that the system be returned to Remanco as part of the deal.
The ruling addresses Remanco's counterclaim that its breach of warranty only warrants repair or replacement, but the court held…
Reference
Gibb, G. (2012). Hyundai Fuel Economy Lawsuit: Your Mileage May Vary. Retrived online: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/hyundai-overstated-fuel-economy-class-action-lawsuit/hyundai-overstated-fuel-economy-class-action-18222.html#.UKCxdOPreII
Decision Making at Chesapeake Energy Corporation Chesapeake Energy Corporation is founded by Aubrey K. McClendon and Tom L. Ward with an initial $50,000 investment. Chesapeake completed its IPO at a split-adjusted price of $1.33 per share that valued the Company at $70 million and reduced McClendon's and Ward's common stock ownership position to just under 60% from 100%. Chesapeake drilled a major deep gas discovery at Navasota River in the deep portion of
One of the most important things that a business can do is to document the conversations that are held between employees. Whether it is a discussion about a possible raise, a question about possible retirement or the decision to hire an assistant if the business had documented the information that was exchanged within the meetings regarding Woythal and others it would have saved everyone time in determining whether a suit
Limitations of the Research or Gaps A Critical Analysis of the Business Judgement Rule under the Australian Corporation Law There have been many large businesses which have collapsed unexpectedly to cause irreparable damage to the investors worldwide in recent years. The most recent and larger cases are those of the fall of the mighty U.S.-based Enron International and the Australian firm, HIH Insurance. These cases shook the faith of the stakeholders
Alberty, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in Defendant's favor, holding that under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 29, 146 et seq. And 467 et seq., there was no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiff was an "independent contractor," not an "employee." The issue on appeal was whether there
Unintended Limitations on Ada Protections ADA Protections The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was designed to prevent discrimination in terms of employment (Title I), telecommunications (Title IV), and public services (Title II), transportation (Title II), and accommodations (Title III), for persons with physical and/or mental disabilities (EEOC, n.d.; Disabled World, 2009). Employers and public establishments are required under the ADA to make accommodations for persons with disabilities, unless it imposes
In fact, whether or not an employer takes effective measures to stop harassment by a co-worker will be relevant to an employer's defense in a sexual harassment lawsuit. In addition, employers facing a retaliatory harassment claim can assert an affirmative defense based on their exercise of reasonable care to prevent and correct the harassment. Basically, the court determined that it comes down to a standard established by the court in