521 Case Scenarios: Grocery, Inc., Presentation

Case Scenarios: Grocery, Inc., Presentation

LAW/521
February 3, 2014
Stuart Schwartz

Case Scenarios: Grocery, Inc., Presentation
Grocery, Inc. Uniform Commercial Code
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applies to sales contracts that are agreements for the sale of tangible, moveable goods (Melvin, Chapter 8, 2011). Therefore, the UCC Article 2 would apply to Grocery Inc. and the different vendors that are making agreements, but only if the contract was missing or had open terms. “Article 2 of the UCC acts to fill in only missing or open terms (where the parties have not expressly agreed otherwise) in a contract for the sale of goods” (Melvin, 2011, Chapter 8). Each contract agreement needs to be reviewed by both Grocery
Their contract was to have their renovations completed within 6 months’ time. Grocery Inc. expects the service to be completed within 6 months and with the quality of work that Company A provides. When Company A contracted that work to Company B, they were not held up to the same standard, therefore Company A is not holding up their side of the contract. However, if Company A requested and communicated this to Grocery Inc. this would not have been a breach of contract. Company A is attempting to claim commercial impracticability. In order for commercial impracticability to apply something unexpected must have occurred for Company A not to be able to complete their services in the time provided by their contract (Cohen Seglias, 2014). This did not occur. Therefore, Company A did breach their contract to Grocery Inc. Company A would have negotiated with Grocery Inc. to have a third party work on some of the renovations there would have not been a breach of contract. However, since there was no negotiating that took place Grocery Inc. may discharge the contract because there was no mutual consent between both
At the time of the sale maybe Jeff thought 17 was old enough to purchase a car. Between Jeff and Steve they accepted the down payment of $200 a month and Jeff was able to take the car. Six months down the road Jeff loses his job and takes the car back to Steve because he cannot afford the payments and wants his money back. This contract is void because Jeff is underage.
Jeff should not receive his down payment back because he entered into a contract with Steve to pay $200.00 a month. According to our text "A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties." To break that promise or contract is enforceable by a court of law.
In this situation, the court would be in favor of Jeff. The terms or conditions of the contract cannot be fulfilled because he is under age. The dealer will clearly state that he thought Jeff was of legal age, but also admit that he did not check his age. With that in mind, the court would favor Jeff. However, Jeff would not be getting any money back because he knew he was underage and he should have never signed the contract.
Gap Filing Rule (Cereal