Nonconforming Goods Case Summary

Mr. Slim Jim verbally submitted an offer to Mr. Potbelly who proceeded to accept Mr. Slim Jims’ offer unequivocally (pg. 122). The “Basic Requirements of a Contract” (pg. 107) were completed. In this bilateral contract (pg. 107), “Communication of Acceptance” (pg. 123) was evident as Mr. Potbelly responded “Sure I’ll take it” when Mr. Slim Jim submitted an offer for the pottery and enthusiastically replied “I’ll take it!” when Mr. Slim Jim gave him an offer of cash for his home. As a result of this, Mr. Slim Jim is suing for the “right to obtain specific performance” asking that the agreement be upheld. Also, according to “admissions” (one of the “exceptions to the statutes of frauds” (pg. 175) Mr. Potbelly’s agreement should be upheld.

HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Inez Grant; Morehouse Parish School Board; Horace Mann Insurance Company and Lloyd Gray, Defendants-Appellants-Appellees.

Two issues are present in the case. The first is a decision on what research should be conducted by Manson and Associates to allow Larry Brownlow to estimate the feasibility of a Coors beer distributorship for a two-county area in Delaware. This issue is evident, even stressed, throughout the case. The second issue is a decision on whether or not the distributorship is feasible or, in other words, a go/no-go decision by Brownlow regarding his application. This issue is largely implicit in the case.

Lost primary profits – Lost profits the π would have made in the resale of the faulty goods

Specific performance. UCC allows buyers to acquire a court order to require the breaching party to complete contract as per negotiated and agreed (Melvin, 2011, p. 198).

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

According to the UCC §§ 2-609(2) and 2-609(4) Between merchants the reasonableness of grounds for insecurity and the adequacy of any assurance offered

Weintraub Genshlea & Sproul, Rosemary Kelley, Charles L. Post, and William S. Jue, for Plaintiff Nosrat Khajavi.

The plaintiff is Island Directory Company, Inc., a Hawaii corporation, and the defendant is Iva 's Kinimaka Enterprises, Inc., a Hawaii corporation, and Iva Kinimaka dba Iva 's Complete Katering

Rush Johnson Farms Inc., brought suit against Missouri Farmers Association Inc., (MFA) for $4,094.60 which Johnson claimed to be the balance due for soybeans sold to MFA. This case presents for the first time in Missouri the question of

The disputed contract is a services contract and should not be governed by the UCC.

Statement of Issues: American Golf Corp is requesting a review of the Fulton Superior Court (Georgia), which has favored Jeffrey and Haley Manley for the actual damages and approved the golf course operator’s motion for a directed verdict for punitive damages for the Manley’s for the negligence action at the golf course. They are suing the company of the golf course and seeking punitive damages. The court decided that American Golf Corp is responsible for punitive damages but has allowed the claims for actual damages to go to trial. In Case No. A96A0615, American Golf Corp appeals from a jury verdict of $140,000 for Jeffrey Manley and $10,000 for his wife, and in case No. A96A0616, plaintiffs cross-appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion for a pre-judgement interest.

Two issues are present in the case. The first is a decision on what research should be conducted by Manson and Associates to allow Larry Brownlow to estimate the feasibility of a Coors beer distributorship for a two-county area in Delaware. This issue is evident, even stressed, throughout the case. The second issue is a decision on whether or not the distributorship is feasible or, in other words, a go/no-go decision by Brownlow regarding his application. This issue is largely implicit in the case.

The Case was first tried in Delaware district court and after the dismissal was upheld, it was tried in U.S Supreme court Who are the Plaintiff and Defendant ? Plaintiff : Kellog Co.

After making this agreement, and before the first day of the first concert, the Hall was destroyed by a fire; meaning the concerts couldn’t be performed as intended. Both parties evidently had no thought about the possibility of such a disaster, and had no form of reference to it in their agreement. Blackburn J. in reviewing this case and the doctrine of frustration court said, 'There seems no doubt that where there is a positive contract to do a thing, not in itself unlawful, the contractor must perform it or pay damages for not doing it, although in consequence of unforeseen accidents, the performance of his contract has become unexpectedly burthensome or even impossible. ' However, in the case of Taylor v Caldwell, the contract was neither positive nor absolute but was subject to an implied condition making this rule not applicable as the parties must have known the risk at the start of the contract to make it absolute; therefore the verdict was that neither party was at fault and the doctrine of frustration applied.