Case Is Croft And Scully Case

Facts: Frigaliment Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. had breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered. In the first of the two contracts Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. ( smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract vice the first agreement) Both contracts were signed by the parties on May 2nd, 1957. BNS shortly after made 2 shipments to meet the requirements of the first contract , of these two shipments the first was not

The plaintiff (Southern Prestige Industries, Inc.) initiated an action against the defendant (Independence Plating Corp.) in a North Carolina state court for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that defects in the defendant’s anodizing process caused the plaintiff’s machine parts to be rejected by Kidde Aerospace. The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its personnel situated in the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements

Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

The buyer shall be notified by the seller regarding the shipment arrangement 7 days before advances, such as the trucking company. Seller shall arrange a delivery that would make sure it on time and in appropriate material or box. The seller will choose a

(quality) did not arrive, Blimka sued. Defendant was properly served in Maine but did not

A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.

Mardy R. Chaplin is the attorney of record assigned to Miss Jamie Wilson (client) housing eviction case in Cuyahoga County. he Legal Agreement expresses that the customer (Jamie Wilson) will pay an upfront installment of $1500.00 and all court costs, recording charges and fines. The price of the ongoing case is still to be determined. It is at Mardy Chaplin discretion and not determined by law that this Attorney's fee is a set amount but rather is negotiable between the Attorney and the Client. Attorney Chaplin can give every single legitimate support of the customer expect the accompanying (a) Matters that, in the attorney’s opinion, lack merit is excluded, (b) Discount of services, and/or (c) hearsay evidence. Attorney will perform the legal services called for under this agreement, keep Client educated of advance and improvements, and react instantly to Client's request and interchanges.

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)

The courts ruled that the plaintiff had not right to use such coercive methods when competing for business and the liability was clear in this circumstance. The defendant was awarded $1250.00 by the plaintiff for compensatory damages and $4000.00 was awarded by the association for exemplary damages. Plaintiff attempted to appeal stating the awarded amount was excessive; the courts ruled that the amount awarded was not excessive and denied the appeal from the plaintiff. No dissenting opinion was made.

Countless frivolous law suits have been filed in the United States, and as a result, many companies have lost thousands and in some case millions of dollars contesting allegations of negligence in the legal court system. This begs the question if these major corporations are truly at fault or is the general public exploiting this loophole for financial gains. In this paper, I aim to evaluate two major cases that occurred in our legal system. The first being the 1994 case between Stella Liebeck v. McDonalds and the second being In 2007, Roy L. Pearson v. Custom Cleaners I will present the facts of these cases, Issues, law that is applicable to the case, Court decision, my opinion on the decision, ethical issues, whether or not the cases are

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)

Shipping and warehousing costs are currently assigned using tons of paper produced, a unit-based measure. Many of these costs, however, are not driven by quantity produced. Many products have special handling and shipping requirements involving extra costs. These costs should not be assigned to those products that are shipped directly to customers.

The Sales of Goods Act 1893 provides the definition of ‘condition’ and ‘warranty’. During the period between 1893 to 1962 both ‘condition’ and ‘warranty’ was generally accepted that they were the only two types of terms which assist in ‘identifying the breaches which entitled the injured party to terminate the contract. In the turning point of 1962, a new type of term-intermediate term brought about a whole new page into the Law of Contract. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd vs Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd is the key case which owns the credit for this discovery. In the case, the ship owner hired out the Hong Kong fir, ‘being in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service’. The ship was delivered on 13 February 1957, sailing

The nature of the Hague-Visby Rules was discussed by the House of Lords in The Hollandia [1983] AC 565 (HL). The plaintiffs (shippers) shipped a piece of road-finishing machinery on board a Dutch vessel, ‘The Morviken’, belonging to the defendant carriers to Bonaire in the Dutch West Indies. The bill of lading issued in England limited the carriers liability to Dutch Florins 1,250 ($250) which was less than the 10,000 Francs per package prescribed under Article IV rule (5)(a) of the Hague-Visby Rules. The 10,000 Francs is an increase from the 100pound fixed under the Hague Rules. In addition, the bill of lading carried an express clause submitting the

L & Co dispatched the goods on credit to Blenkarn, who resold 250 dozen to Cundy. Blenkarn did not pay for the goods. L & Co sued Cundy to recover the handkerchiefs. It was held that the contract between L & Co and Blenkarn was void for unilateral mistake. L & Co intended to deal with Blenkiron & Co, not Blenkarn. Cundy was liable to return the handkerchiefs to L & Co because no right of ownership had passed to him.