Share
Explore BrainMass

On January 1, Ted, a dealer, sold and delivered a new high d

Instructions: Write a complete answer to the question. Make sure you answer all parts of each question and provide a detailed legal analysis of your answer. Clearly state the applicable UCC sections and any assumptions.

The paper must include a detailed analysis of the relevant issues, and clearly state the applicable UCC sections.

1. On January 1, Ted, a dealer, sold and delivered a new high definition television to Betsy, a consumer. Two weeks later, Besty discovered a latent defect in the television, which would turn on and off automatically, at 2 minute intervals. Betsy revoked acceptance of the television, and demanded a new one or her money back. Ted argued that it was customary for a seller to "cure" defects of this nature, by replacing any defective parts. Who is right?

2. In 5 previous contracts, Sam tendered and Bonnie accepted without rejection both 36 and 37 inch steel. The contract description specified "37 inch steel". In the 6th contract, the description specified "36 inch steel". In a delivery under the 6th contract, Sam tendered 37 inch steel. Bonnie rejected Sam's tender of 37 inch steel and Sam sued Bonnie for breach of contract. Who will win the case? Be sure to clearly state your analysis and to cite to the applicable UCC rules.

3. Sally Seller contracted to manufacture office chairs for Bill Buyer for $25,000. Before Sally Seller began performance, Bill Buyer repudiated the contract. Sue Seller immediately canceled the contract, but still decided to manufacture the office chairs. The chairs were completed at a cost of $19,000, but Sally Seller, after reasonable effort, was not able to find anyone to buy them. Sally Seller wants to sue Bill Buyer for the $25,000 contract price. Bill argues that Sally failed to mitigate damages and is limited in damages
to the difference between the contract and market price at the time and place of breach.

Can Sally Seller recover the price, or is she limited to damages according to the Section 2-708(1) formula?

4. Sam sold nails to Bob for $10,000, shipment FOB point of shipment. Sam shipped screws â?" nonconforming goods which Bob, if the defect was discovered, could have rejected. However, Bob accepted the screws and did not discover the defect until later. When Bob discovered the defect, Bob promptly telephoned Sam and revoked his acceptance. That same day, the screws were destroyed by fire while in Bob's warehouse. Bob's insurance covered $5,000 of the loss. Sam sues Bob for the price of the screws, $10,000. What is the outcome of the case? Be sure to cite to the applicable UCC rules.

Solution Preview

1. On January 1, Ted, a dealer, sold and delivered a new high definition television to Betsy, a consumer. Two weeks later, Betsy discovered a latent defect in the television, which would turn on and off automatically, at 2 minute intervals. Betsy revoked acceptance of the television, and demanded a new one or her money back. Ted argued that it was customary for a seller to "cure" defects of this nature, by replacing any defective parts. Who is right?

According to the UCC, Ted is right. Tedâ??s legal obligation is to cure defects, and not to automatically replace merchandise, unless another policy that is in place from Ted stipulates that they will do so. If Tedâ??s store has a policy that all defective merchandise will be automatically replaced with new merchandise, then Ted has an obligation to replace the television set. Because Ted does not have such a policy in place, his obligation is according to Section 2-608 of the UCC, Revocation of Acceptance in Whole or in Part. According to this section, the buyer may revoke acceptance of the item only if the seller has attempted to cure the defect and been unsuccessful, or if the acceptance of the merchandise was induced by some other factor. We have neither of these situations present here. Betsy must allow Ted the opportunity to cure the defect with replacement parts before demanding a replacement television set.

2. In 5 previous contracts, Sam tendered and Bonnie accepted without rejection both 36 and 37 inch steel. The contract description specified "37 inch steel". In the 6th contract, the description specified "36 inch steel". In a delivery under the 6th contract, Sam tendered 37 ...

Solution Summary

On January 1, Ted, a dealer, sold and delivered a new high definition television to Betsy, a consumer. Two weeks later, Besty discovered a latent defect in the television, which would turn on and off automatically, at 2 minute intervals. Betsy revoked acceptance of the television, and demanded a new one or her money back. Ted argued that it was customary for a seller to "cure" defects of this nature, by replacing any defective parts. Who is right?

2. In 5 previous contracts, Sam tendered and Bonnie accepted without rejection both 36 and 37 inch steel. The contract description specified "37 inch steel". In the 6th contract, the description specified "36 inch steel". In a delivery under the 6th contract, Sam tendered 37 inch steel. Bonnie rejected Sam's tender of 37 inch steel and Sam sued Bonnie for breach of contract. Who will win the case? Be sure to clearly state your analysis and to cite to the applicable UCC rules.

3. Sally Seller contracted to manufacture office chairs for Bill Buyer for $25,000. Before Sally Seller began performance, Bill Buyer repudiated the contract. Sue Seller immediately canceled the contract, but still decided to manufacture the office chairs. The chairs were completed at a cost of $19,000, but Sally Seller, after reasonable effort, was not able to find anyone to buy them. Sally Seller wants to sue Bill Buyer for the $25,000 contract price. Bill argues that Sally failed to mitigate damages and is limited in damages
to the difference between the contract and market price at the time and place of breach.

Can Sally Seller recover the price, or is she limited to damages according to the Section 2-708(1) formula?

4. Sam sold nails to Bob for $10,000, shipment FOB point of shipment. Sam shipped screws â?" nonconforming goods which Bob, if the defect was discovered, could have rejected. However, Bob accepted the screws and did not discover the defect until later. When Bob discovered the defect, Bob promptly telephoned Sam and revoked his acceptance. That same day, the screws were destroyed by fire while in Bob's warehouse. Bob's insurance covered $5,000 of the loss. Sam sues Bob for the price of the screws, $10,000. What is the outcome of the case? Be sure to cite to the applicable UCC rules.

$2.19