Special Case Analysis—Material Breach. Go to Case Analysis,
(a) Issue: This case involved allegations of breach of contract involving which parties and for what actions?
(b) Rule of Law: What is the difference between a material breach and a minor breach of contract?
(c) Applying the Rule of Law: How did the court determine which party was in material breach of the contract in this case?
(d) Conclusion: Was the defendant liable for breach? Why or why not?
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Chapter 13 Solutions
Bundle: The Legal Environment Of Business: Text And Cases, 10th + Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card
- V. Explain, What are the legal provisions for consumer redressal and dispute resolution mechanisms under the Consumer Protection Act?arrow_forwardBUSINESS LAW EXPERT PLS ATTAIN THIS 1. An offer to contract was made to you by email. You decided to accept that offer and replied by email stating your acceptance. When is the acceptance validly communicated? 2. P entered into a 10-year lease of a warehouse. Thereafter, the local authority closed the only street access to the warehouse because of a dangerous building. The street was to be re-opened after the dangerous building was demolished. Discuss whether P could refuse to pay rent and have the contract set aside on the basis of frustration.arrow_forwardPLS HELP ASAParrow_forward
- With reference to contract law terms: a) Define exclusion clauses and what their effect is. b) With reference to case law explain under what circumstances an exclusion clause will be incorporated into a contract. c) What type of liability cannot be excluded by exclusion clauses and would render them automatically void? Reference can be made to UCTA 1977 and Consumer Rights Act 2015arrow_forward19) The Elle Corporation manufactures fingernail polish. Suzy buys a container of Elle's fingernail polish, applies it to her nails, and suffers a severe allergic reaction. She sues Elle under the implied warranty of merchantability, The test for determining whether Suzy will recover is whether: A) the nail polish she bought was suitable for the needs of the average consumer. B) the nail polish she bought properly performed its function of coloring one's nails. C) such a reaction in an appreciable number of consumers was reasonably foreseeable. D) the ingredient causing the reaction was foreign to the nail polish or natural to it. nating one model, Bobby noticesarrow_forward10. X has an oral contract with Y for the purchase of Y's lake cabin. X's remedy(ies) is/are if Y breaches: a) Specific performance. b) Injunction. c) Damages. d) Probably no remedy available as this contract had to be in writing before X could take it to court as the Statute of Frauds requires this contract to be in writing.arrow_forward
- 29. A sting broker is employed to find a purchaser and produces a full cash offer that meets the seller's terms. The seller refuses to accept the offer because he doesn't like the buyer. Which condition exists? (4) The broker is entitled to compensation since he produced a buyer who met the seller's terms for the sale A (b) The broker is obligated to find another buyer that the seler kes in order to be compensated (c) The troker is not entiled to compensation unit the contract is signed by all parties. The broker is only wted to compensation when the contract is consummated on the day of closingarrow_forwardReaction to discussion below: Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. was a tenant in a building where alarm systems were maintained by the ADT company. When the systems were defective and allowed water into the building, it damaged Melodee’s property; Then Melodee decided to sue ADT and their defense was that the service contract limited the liability to 10% of the annual service charge given to the customers. The limitation can be valid since the ADT company did not provide much liability protection. The ADT company can offer another protection plan to Melodee, which would cover her property but at a higher price rate. This case limitation of liability clauses will be enacted since ADT company was not fully liable for Melodee's property, which only would cover the limited 10%. A limitation of liability clauses contract states that one of the parties is not fully liable for damages in case of a breach. The ADT company is at fault for the malfunctions in their systems they should offer a higher…arrow_forwardThe insured is covered under O.A.P. 1 Owner’s Policy including Direct Compensation-Property Damage and is involved in an accident in Ontario with an automobile, for which he/she is not at fault. His/her car is severely damaged and personal belongings in the car are destroyed. Which one (1) of the following statements is correct? O A) Damage to the insured's car and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the third party’s policy. O B) Damage to the insured’s car, replacement of destroyed personal belongings and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the insured’s policy, less the policy deductible. O C) Damage to the insured’s car, replacement of destroyed personal belongings and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the third party's policy. O D) Only damage to the insured’s car and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the insured's policy.arrow_forward
- Pls help ASAPon both plsarrow_forwardEmilio's Italian Restaurant enters into a contract with Vino winery wherein Emilio's agrees to purchase all the wine that Vino produces for $8/bottle. a. This contract is unenforceable because it fails to specify a quantity in the contract. b. This is an enforceable contract. c. This contract will only be enforceable if every other contract terms is specified in the contract. d. This contract is unenforceable because Vino hasn't given any consideration for selling all their wine to Emilio's.arrow_forwardSue Flay's Cakery promises to pay Oscar Ruitt not to park in a city-designated no-parking zone in front of her store. This agreement is: (Choose all of the correct answers.) Not enforceable because Oscar Ruitt has no legal right to park in a city-designated no-parking zone Not enforceable because Oscar Ruitt never made any enforceable promise to Sue Flay's Cakery Not enforceable because Oscar Ruitt is merely making an illusory promise Enforceable because Oscar Ruit is giving up the right to do something he would otherwise have the right to do Enforceable because Sue Flay's Cakery is offering legally sufficient consideration to Oscar Ruittarrow_forward
- BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage LearningEssentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage LearningAccounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
- International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education