Given situation: Person TC purchased a motorboat from Company B (a State IL in Country U based corporation). The motorboat is actually manufactured by Company S (a State IN company that has a principal business in City D. Company S doesn’t have an agent and no office in state IL. But person TC has seen Company S’s boats on display of Company B sporting goods store. It is the place where he actually purchased the boat. A written warranty was granted to Person CL in State I, gave by Company S. Even though it was issued with a warrant, in this case she failed to enter an appearance. To determine: Judgement for Person TC.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 7CP

Summary Introduction

Given situation:

Person TC purchased a motorboat from Company B (a State IL in Country U based corporation). The motorboat is actually manufactured by Company S (a State IN company that has a principal business in City D.

Company S doesn’t have an agent and no office in state IL. But person TC has seen Company S’s boats on display of Company B sporting goods store. It is the place where he actually purchased the boat. A written warranty was granted to Person CL in State I, gave by Company S. Even though it was issued with a warrant, in this case she failed to enter an appearance.

To determine: Judgement for Person TC.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

The Province of Saskatchewan, Canada hired a courier to deliver an envelope to a land registry office in British Columbia (BC). Unknown to the courier company, the envelope contained a document relating to land owned by the plaintiff. If delivered on time, the document would have enabled the plaintiff to complete the sale of its land. The courier company was unreasonable slow and delivered the document too late. Consequently, the plaintiff was unable to perform the contract of sale, and it suffered a loss of huge amounts. The Plaintiff sued the courier company for the loss suffered as well related incidental expenses. Does the action of the Plaintiff prosper? Please state your reasons.

Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. was a tenant in a building that was protected against fire by a sprinkler and alarm system maintained by the ADT security company. Because of the latter's fault, the controls on the system were defective and allowed the discharge of water into the building, which damaged Melodee's property. When Melodee sued ADT, its defense was that its service contract limited its liability to 10% of the annual service charge made to the customer. Was this limitation valid? [Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v. American District Telegraph Co., 218 N.E.2d 661 (N.Y.)]

Helvey brought suit against the Wabash County REMC (REMC) for breach of implied and express warranties. He alleged that REMC furnished electricity in excess of 135 volts to Helvey’s home, damaging his 110-volt household appliances. This incident occurred more than four years before Helvey brought this suit. In defense, REMC pleads that the Uniform Commercial Code’s (UCC’s) Article 2 statute of limitations of four years has passed, thereby barring Helvey’s suit. Helvey argues that providing electrical energy is not a transaction in goods under the UCC but rather a furnishing of services that would make applicable the general contract six-year statute of limitations. Is the contract governed by the UCC? Why or why not?