In this example, Beta indeed has remedies. They can choose to reject the goods, and then cancel or cover the contract. According to article 2-508 of the UCC, a buyer is allowed to reject non-conforming within a time period that is reasonable, only if the seller is notified in a timely manner. In this situation Beta examined the goods after a few days, and just so happened to be on a day that was particularly busy for them, which seems reasonable that that it would justify a delayed examination of the goods that were sent. A buyer is given the right to inspect the goods which it receives if it is done within a reasonable time of the receipt. Even though they did have a delay in the examination, they were justified on two counts in their delayed inspection of the goods, as was noted before, they were busy and the goods arrived early. Beta clearly notified Alpha when they learned of the brevity of the situation. It should also be noted that a buyer is allowed to revoke the acceptance of a good within a reasonable time if it was difficult to find or discover a defect in the product.…
The plaintiff’s argument would be that the defendant must return the goods if she wants to repudiate the contract. The lost of teaspoons should be counted as damage to the goods and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the loss by charging compensation from the defendant.…
Signal Sets Company contracts to deliver one hundred 52-inch plasma high-definition television sets to a new retail customer, Tuner TV Store, on May 1, with payment to be made on delivery. Signal tenders delivery in its own truck. Tuner's manager notices that some of the cartons have scrape marks. Tuner's owner phones Signal's office and asks whether the sets might have been damaged as they were being loaded. Signal assures Tuner that the sets are in perfect condition. Tuner tenders Signal a check, which Signal refuses, claiming that the first delivery to new customers is always for cash. Tuner promises to pay the cash within two days. Signal leaves the sets with Tuner, which stores them in its warehouse pending its "Grand Opening Sale" on May 15. Two days later, Tuner's stocker opens some of the cartons and discovers that a number of the sets are damaged beyond ordinary repair. Signal claims Tuner has accepted the sets and is in breach by not paying on delivery. Will Signal succeed on these claims? Explain.…
a. Breach of a warranty of merchantability and breach of a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Both are based on the allegation that the coffee was too hot to consume.…
Goody’s entered into a contract with Banco to purchase wind suits. On or about July 13, 1994, Goody’s agreed to change the delivery date of the first shipment to September 30, 1994 and assured Banco that the “letters of credit” would be amended appropriately. Around August 23, 1994, prior to the contract delivery date, Goody’s informed Banco that they were terminating the contract. Plaintiff comes to the courts for relieve in the matter to a breach of contract.…
The Little Steel Company is a small steel fabricator that makes steel parts for various metal machine shops. When Little receives an order from a client, it must locate and purchase 10 tons of a certain grade of steel to complete the order. Little sends an e-mail message to West Coast Steel Company inquiring into the availability of 10 tons of the described grade of steel. West Coast replies by e-mail that it has available the required 10 tons of steel and quotes $450 per ton. Little replies by e-mail that it will purchase the 10 tons of described steel at the quoted price. The e-mails are signed electronically by Little and West Coast. There is no date set forth in the e-mails for delivery. When the steel arrives, Little rejects shipment, claiming the steel was shipped too late. When West Coast sues Little for breach of contract, Little also raises the defense of the Statute of Frauds. Who wins, and why?…
The Purchaser's exclusive remedy and the Seller's limit of liability for any and all losses or damages resulting from defective goods or from any other cause will be for the purchase price of the particular delivery with respect to which losses or damages are claimed, plus any transportation charges actually paid by the Purchaser.…
Employee proposed new layouts that incorporate barcoding and automated storage and retrieval system (ASRS). The lack of inventory data control that are working and being used and available to the employees on a real-time data managing system has yet to be finalized.…
All consequences of the breach of the condition are deemed to be sufficiently serious to justify termination. The buyer cannot terminate the contract if the non-conformity is a minor defect and slight breach. Slight breach is treated as a breach of warranty in the business sales contract. Slight breach is the breach when the conse-quences of breach do not go to the root of the contract or detriment the purpose of the contract. If the buyer accepts the goods there is no right of termination because termi-nation remedy required…
Why have you chosen to apply to WVU SOM? What opportunities do you foresee yourself taking advantage of during your time here?…
Yes, the seller should cure the nonconforming goods for the buyer. If the buyer accepts the sellers re-tempt to make another delivery because the nature of the circumstance, it would need to be done within the time for performance expires. (UCC 2-508; 2A-513)…
If an entity sells its product but gives the buyer the right to return that product, revenue from the sales transaction shall be recognized at time of sale only if all of the following conditions are met:…
* Delivery has occurred or services have been rendered- the life of contract is 5 years, therefore Tokyo AFM is liable for the damages over the life of the policy.…
The revenue recognition principle is not satisfied in this case with the current accounting methods used to record this contract’s performance obligations. Due to the fact that the receipt of revenue was not reasonably certain, Longeta should not have recorded the revenue for the year-end on September 30th. There is also no proof of the arrangement occurring which raises some red flags in this case. The product was also not delivered to the customer at the date of September 30th, it was only stated that Longeta had shipped the order. The $1.2 million cannot be recorded as a deferred liability as well because in the event that the two parties cannot reach mutually agreeable terms and conditions, Magicon has the right to back out, making the receipt of this service revenue also…
1. Grand Fabricating Co. and Good Corp. agreed orally that Good would custom manufacture a compressor for Grand at a price of $120,000. After Good completed the work at a cost of $90,000, Grand notified Good that the compressor was no longer needed. Good is holding the compressor and has requested payment from Grand. Good has been unable to resell the compressor for any price. Good incurred storage fees of $2,000. If Grand refuses to pay Good and Good sues Grand, the most Good will be entitled to recover is…