Business Law, Essay Example

The Pool

1. The argument that would arise is that Bob did not possess the authority to contract on behalf of the company. There was no contractual delegation of authority to Bob; therefore, Bob was unable to enter into a valid contract on behalf of the company with anyone. The authority to enter into contracts with the company lay with Theodore and Dougan. The company did not employ Bob as an agent of the company; therefore, he lacked the capacity and authority. The authority to contract lay with the two owners and not bob.
2. Mrs. Justason did not accept the recession and reformation of the contract by after the revaluation of the cost by Theodore. According to UCC 2-209 the lack of acceptance of the new terms of the contract makes the contract for the construction of the swimming pool by the company unenforceable. The parties rescinded the previous contract and a new contract formed between the company and Mrs. Justason, not accepted. The failure to accept the new terms of the contract after revaluation forms the basis of noon enforceability of the contract for the construction of the pool.
3. If the construction, of the pool not completed by 4^th of July Mrs. Justason is under no authority to pay any amount of money to the company. The remedies available to Mrs. Justason as provide for by the UCC 2-711 include the remedy of repudiation of the contract and recovery for the price already paid. She can also deduct the value of the construction that is still outstanding or recover damages for nondelivery. The other remedy available would be to file for specific performance of the contract.

Safari

1. The best course of action for Dougan for the ineffectiveness of the backpack is the implied warranty of merchantability. The principle of merchantability according to UCC 2-314 provides that when an item meant to be used for a purpose the item should conform to the ordinary use and purpose of that item. Where the goods do not satisfy the requirement of merchantability, it constitutes a breach of an implied warranty of merchantability. The intended design of the backpack be fitness to carry the items intended, and the failure of the zipper to work rendered the backpack unusable, therefore, not merchantable. The implied warranty in this case is not that of merchantability and Dougan can claim on these grounds.
2. The appropriate cause of action, in the situation of the vehicle, would be failure to serve the intended purpose. The intention of Theodore obtaining the vehicle was to navigate through mud. The intended use of the vehicle communicated to the salesperson who assured that the vehicle was capable of the intended use. Theodore, therefore, acquired the vehicle based on this fact and the vehicle was to perform as per the expectations of Theodore. Failure of the vehicle to navigate through the mud result in a breach of express warranty in provided for in the UCC 2-315 . Theodore relied on the salesperson’s opinion regarding the ability of the vehicle to maneuver through mud. The level of reliance placed on the opinion formed the basis of acquiring the vehicle since the sales person experience on whether the vehicle was capable of the intended use.The inability of the vehicle to drive through the mud goes against the requirements of Theodore made aware of the salesperson. The vehicle must have the ability to navigate through the mud, but in this case the vehicle failed to and, therefore, Theodore can claim for breach on these grounds.

Peanuts

1. Theodore cannot refuse to deliver 6 tons of regular peanuts per week. This is so because in the construction of the contract the agreement was that the minimal number of tons bought would be 5 tons. The contract stipulates the least quantity the buyer can acquire from the seller but does not set any limits on delivery. This implies that the quantity of peanuts bought per week depends on the buyer as long as it does not go below 5 tons. As per the UCC 2-306 the seller in this case cannot restrict the quantity delivered to the buyer.
2.  The additional term on arbitration incorporated into the contract does not have any consequence on the construction  of the contract. The term only comes into effect upon the occurrence of a dispute in the contract and provides the method the dispute is to be resolved. The term does not affect the authenticity or the construction of the contract, but merely a clause to guide the parties on the resolution of disputes arising. The incorporation of the term, therefore, is necessary to streamline the process of dispute resolution.
3. The delivery of the peanuts in this case occurs at the seller’s place of business. Theodore delivers the goods to the buyer’s countrywide; therefore, the place of delivery would be the seller’s premises unless the buyer and the seller specify the place of delivery this is covered by the UCC 2-308. The buyer in this case did not specify the method and place the delivery should take place; therefore, the most appropriate place to deliver the peanuts would be at the seller’s place of business.