Chapter 15 Problem 10 Page 411 Was the cancellation clause unconscionable? Within this court case, the purchaser who is Gantos, gave a buy-out order for the seller Gianni Sport. So, this buy-out order was aimed towards the women's holiday apparel that should had been sent out and received by October 10, 1980 to its purchaser (Mallor, et al., 2007). This buy-out order was granted around June of 1980. At the end of September 1980, the purchaser; Gantos decides to cancel this purchase order and it was said that this order had been done sooner than this delivery of the merchandise (Mallor, et al., 2007).
Party2 didn’t believe that Party1‘s offer was genuine, because they had been drinking and signed on the back of a receipt. Party1 offered Party2 $5usd to show the authenticity of the contract, Party2 refused. The next day Party1 sold half interest to his brother to be able to afford the sale. When Party1 presented the money to Party2 and ask for the deed, Party2 refused to sell him the farm. Party1 then sued Party2 refusing to sell the farm for $50,000.
Basaquiat, I believe that it could go either way. Basaquiat wrote a contract stating that Rosenfeld made a deposit for particular paintings and signed it alone with Rosenfeld signature even though it was in crayon. Some people would look at this as a legal binding contract regardless of how or what it was written with. Two signatures, the purpose of the contract, and the correct date the contract was signed, shall be binding. Others will argue that the crayon written letter would not be enough evidence to win a lawsuit and the other side could argue the point of the contract being written in
There was going to be a new trial, which would create a challenge for the prosecution in light of the DNA evidence. The appeal was never waited on even though it was granted due to the fact that they would have had to be in jail another six months and if anything went to the appeal, Echols could have been executed. He was the friend of the other two convicted and they did not want to see, or be responsible in any way, for their friend being executed. The courts would never have let the defendants out if they had not known their innocence found with the new DNA evidence. The state did not want to have to admit that they arrested innocents and locked them up for 18 years.
Question 2: What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Facts in favor: There are several facts that are in favor of Chou for intent to contract. The first is that an oral distribution agreement as met, and that an email was sent by BTT with the agreement terms that included price, time frames, and the obligations of both parties. Also after the draft was again requested via fax by BTT it was immediately sent with no timely rejection. Facts against: In the original negotiation agreement it was stipulated that no distribution contract existed unless it was in writing.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denied him six months of benefits after the year he had made the additional money that disqualified him for the benefits. The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) denied his petition for review claiming that the advice he had received from OPM would allow them to deny his benefits under this regulation. Key Legal Issues Charles appealed the denial of his benefits to the MSPB, and claimed that he had been given the wrong information from the specialist. The MSPB board denied his claim and said he should have reached out to the proper officials to get the right information. Basically the MSPB put the ball back in Charles Richmond ballpark saying he should have known better.
The plaintiff appealed. Issue The court sought to determine whether the past consideration done gratuitously would make the promise of future agreement enforceable. Holding/Decision The court upheld the lower courts findings, that the promise made by Tallas was not supported by any consideration and that the agreement showed that Tallas planned on making the change sometime in the future. They also found that the work done by the
Armstrong’s failures to meet their obligation gives GCI three options: they may reject the entire shipment of goods, accept the shipment of goods as is, or accept any number of commercial units and reject the rest of the goods, (Melvin 2011, pg. 192). One right that is available to Armstrong is referred to as the cure. The cure is the UCC’s way of promoting the completion of an original contract. It would allow Armstrong (the seller) the right or opportunity to repair or replace any goods that the buyer (GCI) has rejected as long as the time period for performance has not
Litronic refused to accept them, arguing that he 90-day warranty period had lapsed. RULE: KNOCKOUT DOCTRINE. When the seller’s and buyer’s terms differ materially, the two terms cancel each other out, and the contested term is supplied by a Code gap-filler. Posner points out, however, that he would prefer a rule that says all additional terms are different terms and vice versa, thus UCC 2-207(2) about additional terms should apply, unless materially alter the contract. Prof. Goldberg, on the other hand, suggests a “best shot” rule, where all terms in one form should be enforced based on their relative fairness.
Evidence showed that Allstate offered the plaintiff’s time to observe their holy day but they would have to work another day. The case was dismissed for lack of supportive