Answered: (11) A agrees with B to sell "200 pairs… | bartleby

Related questions

Question

(11) A agrees with B to sell "200 pairs of
shoes" this agreement is.....
a) Voidable
b) Valid
c) Void

Expert Solution

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

Step by step

Solved in 4 steps

SEE SOLUTION Check out a sample Q&A here

Blurred answer

Similar questions

4.Bryson issues a $5,000 negotiable check "payable to the order of Yolanda or cash." Yolanda places her signature on the back of the check. Yolanda then negotiates the check to Casey. Given these facts, which of the following is generally correct? а. The check was issued as a bearer instrument and Yolanda could not have converted it into an order instrument. b. Yolanda's indorsement on the instrument is not required in order for Casey to qualify or assert that he is a holder in due course. С. Yolanda's indorsement on the instrument is generally referred to as a special indorsement. d. Yolanda's indorsement on the instrument is required in order for Casey to qualify or assert that he is a holder in due course.
In the case of a contract for sale by sample there is an implied condition of all the following EXCEPT: That the goods will be free from any defect, rendering them un-merchantable, which would not O a. be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample. O b. That the buyer will have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample C. That the bulk will correspond with the sample in quality O d. That the bulk of items will on average correspond with the sample quality
The following situations generally require a contract to be in writing: • sales of land • purchases of goods over $500 • promises made in consideration of marriage ⚫ contracts that cannot be completed in less than one year • a contract in which one person promises to pay the debt of another person This legal concept is known as offer and acceptance promissory estoppel the statute of frauds et lux perpetua luceat eis
Explain how the following became sources of an obligation 1. Law 2. Contract 3. Quasi-contract 4. Acts or Omission punished by law
The listing agreement compensates the firm and agent that bring the property to market as well as the firm and agent that brings the buyer. How does the choice to decline a buyers agent effect the cost to the seller? Explain how a seller-sub agent bringing a buyer differs for the buyer from choosing a buyers agent to represent you as a buyer. The sellers sub-agent has a fiduciary responsibility to what party? Why is the idea "I don't want to pay an agent to work in my interest as the buyer" is flawed in it's logic and understanding of the structure of the listing agreement.
Mr. Oliver entered into contract with his friend Mr. Green to transport some material in two weeks’ time. About a month before the delivery was to be made, the material was banned by the legislature, and so delivery was not possible. Mr. Green could have been arrested by the police if he was caught delivering the goods, but he delivered it anyway. Mr. Oliver refuses to pay. i. What can you say about the contract Mr. Oliver and Mr. Green entered into? ii. Should Mr. Green have made the delivery? why or why not? iii. Can Mr. Green enforce payment? why or why not. iv. What was the impact of the legislative action on the contract?
Farmer grows and sells blueberries. Maine Wild Blueberry Co. agreed to buy all of Farmer’s crop for the next two years under a contract that left the price to be determined. Farmer delivered all of the blueberries he was able to harvest. However, a dispute arose over the amount of blueberries Maine will accept and the price it has to pay. Is there an enforceable contract? If so, what is the amount of blueberries Maine must accept and at what price? Discuss is detail.
Option A is not the answe
Business law problem
Zelda wants to sell her old red truck. In an effort to sell it quickly, Zelda mails a letter to her long time pal Maude offering to sell the truck to Maude for $15.000. Three days after Zeida sends that letter to Maude, Zelda's boyfriend, Trevor, informs Zelda that the truck is actually worth $30.000 However, just minutes after Maude posts (.e.. puts in the mail) a letter with the postmaster accepting Zelda's offer, Zelda calis Maude telling her the new price for the old red truck is $30,000. Does Zelda have to uphold the deal and sell Maude the truck for $15,000? O No, the fair market value of the truck is $30,000 and that's what Maude must pay for it. O No, Zelda doesn't have to sell to Maude at all, if she does not wish to do so. O Yes, Zelda must sell the truck to Maude for $15,000. OYes, Zelda must still sell the truck to Maude, but at a price greater than $15,000 but less than $30,000. O No. Maude must split the difference in price with Zelda and pay $22.500 for the truck
Before the purchase transaction, Shell had made know to Carbonic Co the purpose and intended use of electrodes. In short, Shell company put their trust and reliance on the skill and expertise of Carbonic Co. So, Shell ordered 60,000 kilograms of welding electrodes from Carbonic Co. for use in a project involving the fabrication of a cross-country gas transmission line. It turned out the electrodes are incapable of producing satisfactory weld in a vertical position. Shell sued Carbonic Co for violation under the Sale of Goods Act. Does Shell action prosper? Please state your reasons.
Deep South Imaging Inc., a US company enters into an agreement with Cortez Health Systems, a Mexican company. The agreement calls for Deep South to purchase 5 new MRI machines at a price of $20,000 each. The contract calls for delivery to Deep South's headquarters in Mobile, Alabama. The contract is silent as to risk of loss. When the goods arrive, Deep South is upset to see that two of the machines were damaged in transit. Deep South informs Cortez that it will not pay for the broken machines. If Cortez sues Deep South, it will likely A. Win, because the UCC requires deep south to pay pay for the goods B. Lose, because MRI machines are related to a service and therefore are not covered by the CISG C. Win, because damage to the goods does not give the buyer the right to not fulfill its payment obligations D.