Case summary: Company A contracted with N for installation of rack system. Both parties were dissatisfied with the result and N filed a suit against A. The court applying the common law principle ruled in favor of N. A appealed to this decision contending that the lower court should have applied the UCC.
To find: The application of common law principles and UCC in cases involving goods and services.
Case summary: Company A contracted with N for installation of rack system. Both parties were dissatisfied with the result and N filed a suit against A. The court applying the common law principle ruled in favor of N. A appealed to this decision contending that the lower court should have applied the UCC.
To find: The decision of appellate court in favor of applying UCC.
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Chapter 14 Solutions
Bundle: The Legal Environment Of Business: Text And Cases, 10th + Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card
- 4. Under Article 4 of the Uniform Commercial code, a stale check is a check that was drawn more than 4 months before being presented. True False 5. A consumer who make a contract with a door to door salesman who comes to the consumer's home, has 5 days to cancel the contract in accordance with a Federal Trade commission regulation. True False 6. Sarah works as an employee for her employer , ABC Corporation, which is a private company. Sarah's employer can compel her to accept her salary payment by electronic transfer. True False 7. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, any person who obtains information from a credit agency under false pretenses is subject to criminal and civil penalties True Falsearrow_forwardCari enters a single-agency relationship with a listing broker, who owes her full disclosure and loyalty. The listing broker then finds Buyer Bonnie who wants that same broker to represent her in a transaction broker relationship, providing Bonnie with certain duties such as limited confidentiality. Can the broker represent Cari in a single-agency relationship AND represent Bonnie as a transaction broker in the same transaction? No, because offering Bonnie limited confidentiality would conflict with the full disclosure already owed to Cari. Yes, but only if the limited confidentiality owed to Bonnie is needed to fulfill Cari's objective of selling the property. Yes, as long as the broker tries to be fair to br + parties.arrow_forwardBefore 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.arrow_forward
- S insured his appliance store under an owner, landlords, and tenant’s policy that included products liability coverage. While he was demonstrating a microwave oven the door came open and injured a customer. Which of the following would protect S? The oven manufacture’s products liability policy The premises-operation section on S’s policy The products Liability section on S’s policy The incidental contracts section of S’s policyarrow_forwardPalatka Costumes & Caps LLC ("PC & C") is a large props company formed in 1957, and Frodo Flags Corporation is a small, local flag manufacturer formed in 2015. These two businesses never had any dealings with each other until they recently entered into a contract, with terms all drafted by PC & C. The contract provides that PC & C shall purchase 1,000 flags that Frodo Flags will specially design for PC & C. The contract further provides that PC & C has the right to initiate, on a weekly basis, purchase orders of up to 100 flags until the contract's total number of flag purchases - 1,000 flags has been met. Also, the contract includes a clause stating that PC & C can cancel its obligation to pay for the remaining flags at any time if any Frodo Flags shipment does not arrive on the exact day as stated in a particular purchase order; this last provision is included in the contract even though time was of little importance to PC & C. W The first shipment of 100 flags arrives a day late,…arrow_forwardTime Inc. offers to sell to Unlimited Sales Company one hundred digital watches at $50 a piece, subject to certain specific delivery dates. Unlimited replies with a signed purchase order that reads, “Accept your offer for 100 watches at $50 each. Must be delivered to our warehouse.” Time does not respond or deliver the goods. Unlimited files a suit for breach of contract, to which Time answers that there is no contract because Unlimited’s purchase order contained additional terms and is not signed by Time. A valid contract exists and the additional terms ("must be delivered to our warehouse") becomes part of the contract. A) True B) Falsearrow_forward
- Toby's Doggie Hotel enters into a contract with ABC Marketing to purchase 100 orange frisbees for $300.00. Toby's Doggie Hotel repudiates the contract and ABC later resells the frisbees to someone else for $250.00. a. ABC is not entitled to recover from Toby's Doggie Hotel b. ABC is entitled to recover $50.00 from Toby's Doggie Hotel c. ABC is entitled to recover $250.00 from Toby's Doggie Hotel d. ABC is entitled to recover $300.00 from Toby's Doggie Hotelarrow_forwardWhen OTES developed its first online application for university math courses, BD sued both OES and Gone. BD contends that Gone has breached his covenant not to compete, because he is engaging in a competitive business in online learning resources in university-level math and science and that he has proprietary information regarding the development of science and math tutorial programs. BD further contends that OTES is engaging in tortious interference with contract. BD is Gone and OTES deny the claims, and state that Gone has not violated his employment agreement, because they are not engaging in a competitive business with BD. The law in Georgia was recently amended to include the following provisions: A covenant not to compete must be reasonable in terms of time, geographical area, and prohibited activities. A time period longer than 2 years is presumed to be unenforceable. The courts are permitted to blue-pencil (or reform) covenants that are otherwise unenforceable.…arrow_forwardWhat are the limitations of the public agency's authority to enter into the contracts?arrow_forward
- 2. The company's objects stated that it was to carry on a business as gown makers but the business had evolved into making veneered panels. No change had been made to the objects clause to reflect this change. A coal merchant had supplied coal to the company which was ordered on company notepaper headed with reference to the company being a veneered panel maker. The company subsequently refused to pay the coal merchant. – Can the company do so? Give reasons for your answer.arrow_forwardWhat does agency law tell us about who may sign or executed agreements for a company and who is liable when they do.arrow_forwardIn 1923, DuPont was granted the exclusive right to make and sell cellophane in North America. In 1927, the company introduced a moisture-proof brand of cello- phane that was ideal for various wrapping needs. Although more expensive than most competing wrapping, it offered a desired combination of transparency, strength, and cost. Except for its permeability to gases, however, cellophane had no qualities that a number of competing materials did not possess as well. Cellophane sales increased dramatically, and by 1950, DuPont produced almost 75 percent of the cellophane sold in the United States. Nevertheless, sales of the material constituted less than 20 percent of the sales of “flexible packaging materials.” The United States brought an action, contending that by so dominating cellophane production, DuPont had monopolized a part of trade or commerce in violation of the Sherman Act. DuPont argued that it had not monopolized because it did not have the power to control the price of…arrow_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