Super Vs Bing Essay
Answer to Question #6 (Sales)
GOVERNING LAW
Contracts for the sale of goods are governed by Article 2 of the UCC. “Goods” are all things moveable at the time they identified as the goods to be sold under the contract. Since Bing ordered moveable goods, 400 gallons of epoxy, thus, this is a contract for the sale of goods and is governed by the UCC Article 2. In addition, since both parties were merchants, therefore, additional rules reserved for merchants applied.
CONTRACT FORMATION
The question is whether there was a valid contract between Bing and Super.
For a contract to be valid, there must be offer, acceptance, and consideration.
Offer
In contract law, an offer is a promise in exchange for performance by another party. For a contract for the sale of goods, an offer must be …show more content…
Based on the doctrine of merchantability, Super gave Bing implied warranty that the epoxy will meet meets industry standard and Bing had reasonable expectation that the epoxy will harden. Therefore, there was an implied contract between Bing and Super
BING V. SUPER
BREACH OF CONTRACT
On the basis of implied contract, Bing will be able to prevail in action against Super.
Under UCC, if a seller is a merchant, a warranty of merchantability is implied. To be merchantable, the goods must reasonably conform to an ordinary buyer’s expectation.
Here, when Bing applies epoxy to the surfboards, the epoxy compound had failed to harden properly, leaving surfboards useless. Because Super delivered the defective product, Super breached the implied warranty of merchantability.
DAMAGES
Because Super delivered defective goods, Bing would be able to recover compensatory damages for the breach of contract. In the present case, Bing could recover expectations, incidental and consequential damages.
Expectation Damages
Bing will be able to recover expectation damages from
GOVERNING LAW
Contracts for the sale of goods are governed by Article 2 of the UCC. “Goods” are all things moveable at the time they identified as the goods to be sold under the contract. Since Bing ordered moveable goods, 400 gallons of epoxy, thus, this is a contract for the sale of goods and is governed by the UCC Article 2. In addition, since both parties were merchants, therefore, additional rules reserved for merchants applied.
CONTRACT FORMATION
The question is whether there was a valid contract between Bing and Super.
For a contract to be valid, there must be offer, acceptance, and consideration.
Offer
In contract law, an offer is a promise in exchange for performance by another party. For a contract for the sale of goods, an offer must be …show more content…
Based on the doctrine of merchantability, Super gave Bing implied warranty that the epoxy will meet meets industry standard and Bing had reasonable expectation that the epoxy will harden. Therefore, there was an implied contract between Bing and Super
BING V. SUPER
BREACH OF CONTRACT
On the basis of implied contract, Bing will be able to prevail in action against Super.
Under UCC, if a seller is a merchant, a warranty of merchantability is implied. To be merchantable, the goods must reasonably conform to an ordinary buyer’s expectation.
Here, when Bing applies epoxy to the surfboards, the epoxy compound had failed to harden properly, leaving surfboards useless. Because Super delivered the defective product, Super breached the implied warranty of merchantability.
DAMAGES
Because Super delivered defective goods, Bing would be able to recover compensatory damages for the breach of contract. In the present case, Bing could recover expectations, incidental and consequential damages.
Expectation Damages
Bing will be able to recover expectation damages from