In this case, the facts suggest that the parties are seller (Abe) and buyer (Bob) which make them “merchants” within the meaning of the UCC because Abe is selling his widgets and Bob is buying widgets for his business. i. Merchant: A merchant is a person who has special knowledge of or who regularly deals in this type of moveable goods involved. Since the parties are both merchants within the meaning of the UCC, they will be held to a higher standard of good faith and fair dealing, the “Special Merchant Rule” will govern as well. Add Special Merchant ii.
In this case, the facts suggest that the parties are seller (Abe) and buyer (Bob) which make them “merchants” within the meaning of the UCC because Abe is selling his widgets and Bob is buying widgets for his business. i. Merchant: A merchant is a person who has special knowledge of or who regularly deals in this type of moveable goods involved. Since the parties are both merchants within the meaning of the UCC, they will be held to a higher standard of good faith and fair dealing, the “Special Merchant Rule” will govern as well. Add Special Merchant ii.
The contract that Gerald and Kids Care formed is a bilateral contract “promise for a promise” created by two parties, which may be enforceable and considered under the doctrine of promissory estoppel (also called detrimental reliance). The doctrine of promissory estoppel can help enforce a promissory contract in a court of law. The doctrine of promissory estoppel may be applied when problems concerning consideration are present. According to the Business Law (Miller & Hollowell, 2012) textbook, in order for the doctrine of promissory estoppel to be applied, a number of elements are required: 1.
Offeror: In the contractual terminology, the one who makes an offer for the purpose of bargain for something and a contract would be formed as the result of the offer. 7. Offeree: In the contractual terminology, the person who accepts the offer initiates by the offeror. 8. Statute of Frauds: In the contractual terminology, the statue of fraud declared certain contracts judicially unenforceable but not void, if the contracts
And then the Judge may consider this case as unintentional tort caused by the tyre company which will make them strictly liable to pay the damages for the harmed party. • Apply the elements of the tort of negligence and defense’s in different business situations: 1. Duty of Care: it is the responsibility of the employer to impose everyone not to place others at foreseeable risk. Ex: Employer is responsible to provide special facilities if they have colleagues with special needs such as having toilets specialized for them, elevators etc. 2.
Facts This is the who, what, when, where, and why of the case. Remember this is a brief, so you can just summarize. A suit was filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against the defendant for breach of an express warranty under Kansas law, the plaintiff claim that the item that was acquired failed to perform, the jury deliberated that the plaintiff should receive damages, and yes it was a breach of a contractual agreement, usually when you purchase a good unless its stated as is, you are assuming that the item is in reasonable condition. Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description Plaintiff argued, the defendant appealed the decision, and claim that the suit was barred by the Kansas statute of limitations, the defendant state that because the plaintiff signed a disclaimer he agreed to a limited.
Contract & Agency Law Question 1 Breach of contract It is necessary to determine what type of contract was breached. A breach of contract occurs when a party fails to perform all his obligations under the contract. There are two types of breach of contract- breach of warranty or breach of condition. Breach of warranty refers to the failure of a seller to fulfil the terms of a promise, claim, or representation made concerning the quality or type of the product. The law assumes that a seller gives certain warranties concerning goods that are sold and that he or she must stand behind these assertions.
The first common element is that there has to be more than one party or topic of interest to be negotiated. Each party in the negotiation may have similar, or competing, interests that form the basis of negotiation. The owner In the case analysis there are several primary interested parties. Of course, the first interested party is the owner of the residence. The, readily apparent, motivation for the owner of the house, is to receive financial remuneration to defray the cost of the (assumed) mortgage on the residence.
The principle area that this question is concerned with is that of contractual formation. One will assess whether there has been an offer matched to a corresponding acceptance in the Case of Charlie and Rose, or whether Charlie’s letter was merely an invitation to treat. The third significant issue to look at is if a contract was then formed between C and R, would Charlie be in breach of this contract when he sells the ring to a third party. A consideration of the nature surrounding these issues and their application to these facts would be relevant in determining these matters. First it is relevant to differentiate whether Charlie’s letter constituted the requisite terms to be an offer or an invitation to treat.
This is to include Giorgio’s contract. An agent is empowered to perform legal acts that are binding on the principal and can bind a principal in a contract with a third person (Miller & Hollowell, 2013). The fact that I dispatched Delilah to act on my behalf, and according to agency relationship which clearly states that in a principal-agent relationship the parties agree that the agent will act on behalf and instead of the principal in negotiating and transacting business with third persons (Miller & Hollowell, 2013). Therefore, I would be liable for that contract. The duties and rights between the principal and the agent in an undisclosed principal situation are essentially equal.