Company NEPG contracted with company SS to supply stylets and nozzles to company KY. However, the contract did not make any reference to KY or required its acknowledgement. NEPG further contracted with company SS for acquiring parts from company IS. The terms of the contract stated that before shipment, company IS will obtain company NEPG’s acceptance on conforming goods. NEPG will certify the shipment according to KY’s specification. And on delivery, KY will inspect the goods. After nearly six transactions, NEPG refused to make payments as the material supplied by SS was rejected by KY. To find: The impact of the UCC acceptance rules on the action of the parties.

Question

B. Hawkeye Bank & Trust and affiliated banks agreed to refer bank customers to Financial Marketing Services, Inc. (FMS) for the purchase of life insurance. Hawkeye and FMS shared the commissions. Hawkeye employees and some independent agents licensed through FMS made the actual sales; however, all insurance business was FMS’ property. Because of concern about the confidentiality of bank customer information, Hawkeye decided to terminate its contract with FMS and sell insurance directly to its customers. The independent agents claimed Hawkeye terminating the contract with FMS constituted intentional interference with the agents’ contracts and prospective relations. Was it? Explain your position.

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 14, Problem 6BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Company NEPG contracted with company SS to supply stylets and nozzles to company KY. However, the contract did not make any reference to KY or required its acknowledgement. NEPG further contracted with company SS for acquiring parts from company IS. The terms of the contract stated that before shipment, company IS will obtain company NEPG’s acceptance on conforming goods. NEPG will certify the shipment according to KY’s specification. And on delivery, KY will inspect the goods. After nearly six transactions, NEPG refused to make payments as the material supplied by SS was rejected by KY.

To find: The impact of the UCC acceptance rules on the action of the parties.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

B. Hawkeye Bank & Trust and affiliated banks agreed to refer bank customers to Financial Marketing Services, Inc. (FMS) for the purchase of life insurance. Hawkeye and FMS shared the commissions. Hawkeye employees and some independent agents licensed through FMS made the actual sales; however, all insurance business was FMS’ property. Because of concern about the confidentiality of bank customer information, Hawkeye decided to terminate its contract with FMS and sell insurance directly to its customers. The independent agents claimed Hawkeye terminating the contract with FMS constituted intentional interference with the agents’ contracts and prospective relations. Was it? Explain your position.

11. In a contract that calls for goods to be delivered, the UCC has a presumption in favor of: Group of answer choices -A destination contract -A shipment contract -A quasi-contract -An oral contract 15. The Uniform Commercial Code defines “good faith” as Group of answer choices -honesty in fact -caveat emptor -whatever the parties agree to -the UCC does not define good faith 22.Ghazi has received a shipment of goods, but determined that 20% of the goods are defective. Under the Perfect Tender Rule, she can -accept the entire order -reject the entire order -keep the conforming goods and return the defective ones -all of the above.

Liability for Contracts. Thomas Huskin and hiswife entered into a contract to have their home remodeledby House Medic Handyman Service. Todd Hall signed thecontract as an authorized representative of House Medic. Itturned out that House Medic was a ctitious name for HallHauling, Ltd. the contract did not indicate this, however, andHall did not inform the Huskins about Hall Hauling. When acontract dispute later arose, the Huskins sued Todd Hall personally for breach of contract. Can Hall be held personallyliable? Why or why not? [Huskin v. Hall, 2012 WL 553136(Ohio Ct.App. 2012)] (See Liability in Agency Relationships.)