Accra Brewery Company Limited agreed to supply 300 cartons of Star Beer for the 2022 Christmas Season to Alisa Hotels. It was agreed that delivery was to be made on or before 15th December 2022. As at 24th December 2022, Accra Brewery Company Limited had not delivered the beer. Alisa Hotels therefore repudiated the contract, arguing that the ‘X’ mass season was almost over. On 3rd January 2023, Accra Brewery Company Limited intended to deliver and Alisa Hotels repudiated. Advise the parties. With the application of Laws

Determine the amount to be paid in full settlement of each of the following invoices, assuming that credit for returns and allowances was received prior to payment and that all invoices were paid within the discount period: Merchandise Freight Paid by Seller Customer Returns and Allowances a. $13,900 FOB destination, n/30 $700 b. 11,000 $400 FOB shipping point, 1/10, n/30 1,300 c. 8,500 FOB shipping point, 2/10, n/30 800 d. 2,800 100 FOB shipping point, 1/10, n/30 400 e. 3,700 - FOB destination, 2/10, n/30 -

1 A, agrees to deliver his old CTV for Rs. 30,000 to B, an electronic dealer, in exchange for new CTV and agrees to pay the difference in cash. Is it a valid contract of sale? What would be your answer if he exchanges old CTV against the new CTV and does not pay any money?

Atomic Kat Ltd manages a famous pop group known as Atomic Kat. Each member of the group has signed a contract with Atomic Kat Ltd agreeing to perform in the band. In January, Atomic Kat Ltd began negotiations with Alcopops Plc for sponsorship for Atomic Kat, a, in a proposed 6-week tour. Natasha is the lead singer in Atomic Kat. In February Natasha informed the rest of the members of the group that she was thinking of going solo. ‘I’m not sure, I’m thinking about it’, she said. In March, Atomic Kat Ltd signed a sponsorship agreement with Alcopops Plc under which Atomic Kat Ltd agreed to promote Alcopops over a fixed duration 6-week tour in return for the sum of £100,000 paid by Alcopops to support the group’s tour. Atomic Kat Ltd immediately began marketing and publicity for the tour, and sold hundreds of tickets to fans who were looking forward to hearing the band and especially Natasha who is the band’s most famous member. The tour has now began, but at the end of the first…

Question 1 Company A, which is a Singapore company, concluded a sales of goods contract with Company B, which is a German company. The contract was signed on 30 November 2019. Under the contract, Company B, as the seller, agreed to deliver a certain amount of sheet iron rolls (the goods) to Company A, as the buyer, on or before 30 June 2020. The contract also specified that the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) is the governing law of the contract. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19, Company B was only able to deliver 50% of the goods to Company A on 30 June 2020. Company B requested for an extension of the delivery date and promised to deliver the rest of the goods on or before 31 December 2020. Company A agreed for the extension, but Company B failed to deliver the rest of the goods on 31 December 2020 due to a new wave of COVID-19 in Europe. (a)  Based on your understanding of relevant provisions under the CISG, indicate three (3)…

If the delivery term in the parties’ contract for the sale of goods is FOB the place at what the goods originated, absent any other agreement, the buyer is responsible for making reasonable arrangements for the goods to be shipped.   true or false

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.

Classique Designs sells a variety of merchandise, including school shoes for girls. The business began the last quarter of 2013 with 30 pairs of the “Aerosoles” brand at a total cost of $54,000. The following transactions, relating to the “Aerosoles” brand were completed during the quarter: October 3 Purchased 45 pairs of shoes at a cost of $1,900 each. October 15 Sold 55 pairs to Casually Elegant Ltd at a unit price of $2,780 October 26 Purchased 70 pairs at a cost of $2,400 each but these were subject to a trade discount of 5%. November 10 Sold 60 pairs to Best City Store which yielded total sales revenue of $192,000. November 14 Owing to an increased demand for this brand, the manager of Classique purchased 80 additional pairs of the “Aerosole” brand at a unit cost of $2,500, but additionally there was freight charge of $100 on each pair. November 24 Sold 60 pairs of shoes to Big Buy Company at a price of $3,600 each. November 30 A physical…

Bergaya Store has been ordering jeans and shirts bearing a well-known trademark ‘Young Wear’ from ABC Sdn. Bhd., their only supplier since 2010. On January 2020, Bergaya Store ordered more jeans and shirts with request ‘the same as our previous contracts.’ Both of them agreed that the order must be deliver to Bergaya Store on 1st February 2020. Unfortunately, ABC Sdn. Bhd forgot the actual delivery date and only make the delivery on 23rd February 2020. It also finds out that ABC Sdn. Bhd. delivered the jeans and shirts which are of the same quality but bearing a different trademark, ‘Classic Wear.’ Advise Bergaya Store whether they can repudiate the contract and suggest the suitable remedies that can be claimed by Bergaya Store in this situation. Support your answer with Sale of Goods Act 1957 and decided cases (if any).

ABC Co. signed a contract to export 200 M/T of beans. The letter of credit stipulated, "Partial shipment not allowed". When the shipment was being made, the exporter loaded 100 M/T each on board the same vessel for the same voyage at the port of Shanghai and the port of Dalian. The shipment document was clearly marked with the ports of shipment and the dates of shipment. Did the exporter violate the terms of the L/C?