Note: This is a two-part assignment that consists of two different contract analysis scenarios. Please answer both scenarios on one document, and upload it to Blackboard.
Contract analysis scenario one—damages determination: Alfred and Barbara own adjoining farms in Dry County, an area where all agriculture requires irrigation. Alfred bought a well-drilling rig and drilled a 400-foot well from which he drew drinking water. Barbara needed no additional irrigation water, but in January 1985, she asked Alfred on what terms he would drill a well near her house to supply better-tasting drinking water than the county water she has been using for years. Alfred said that because he had never before drilled a well for hire, he would charge Barbara only $10 per foot, about one dollar more than his expected cost. Alfred said that he would drill to a maximum depth of 600 feet, which is the deepest his rig could reach. Barbara said, “OK—as long as you can guarantee completion by June 1, we have a deal.” Alfred agreed, and he asked for $3,500 in advance, with any further payment or refund to be made on completion. Barbara said, “OK,” and she paid Alfred $3,500.
Alfred started to drill on May 1. He had reached a depth of 200 feet on May 10 when his drill struck rock and broke, plugging the hole. The accident was unavoidable. It had cost Alfred $12 per foot to drill this 200 feet. Alfred said he would not charge Barbara for drilling the useless hole in the ground, but he would have to start a new well close by and could not promise its completion before July 1.
Barbara, annoyed by Alfred’s failure, refused to let him start another well. On June 1, she contracted with Carl to drill a well. Carl agreed to drill to a maximum depth of 350 feet for $4,500, which Barbara also paid in advance, but Carl could not start drilling until October 1. He completed drilling and struck water at 300 feet on October 30.
In July, Barbara sued Alfred, seeking to recover her $3,500 paid to Alfred, plus the $4,500 paid to Carl.
On August 1, Dry County’s dam failed, thus reducing the amount of water available for irrigation. Barbara lost her apple crop worth $15,000. The loss could have been avoided by pumping from Barbara’s well if it had been operational by August 1. Barbara amended her complaint to add the $15,000 loss.
In a minimum of a 1,000-word contract analysis, discuss Barbara’s suit against Alfred. What are Barbara’s rights, and what damages, if any, will she recover?
Cite any direct quotes or paraphrased material from outside sources. Use APA format.
Contract analysis scenario two—remedies determination: Mundo manufactures printing presses. Extra, a publisher of a local newspaper, had decided to purchase new presses. Rep, a representative of Mundo, met with Boss, the president of Extra, to describe the advantages of Mundo’s new press. Rep also drew rough plans of the alterations that would be required in Extra’s pressroom to accommodate the new presses, including additional floor space and new electrical installations, and Rep left the plans with Boss.
On December 1, Boss received a letter signed by Seller, a member of Mundo’s sales staff, offering to sell the required number of presses at a cost of $2.4 million. The offer contained provisions relating to the delivery schedule, warranties, and payment terms but did not specify a particular mode of acceptance of the offer. Boss immediately decided to accept the offer and telephoned Seller’s office. Seller was out of town, and Boss left the following message: “Looks good. I’m sold. Call me when you get back so we can discuss details.”
Using the rough plans drawn by Rep, Boss also directed that work begin on the necessary pressroom renovations. By December 4, a wall had been demolished in the pressroom, and a contract had been signed for the new electrical installations.
On December 5, the President of the United States announced a ban on foreign imports of computerized heavy equipment. The ban removed—from the American market—a foreign manufacturer that had been the only competitor of Mundo. That afternoon, Boss received an email from Mundo stating, “All outstanding offers are withdrawn.” In a subsequent telephone conversation, Seller told Boss that Mundo would not deliver the presses for less than $2.9 million.
In a minimum of a 1,000-word contract analysis, discuss the following questions: Was Mundo obligated to sell the presses to Extra for $2.4 million? Assume Mundo was so obligated. What are Extra’s rights and remedies against Mundo?
Cite any direct quotes or paraphrased material from outside sources. Use APA format.
Kubasek, N., Browne, M. N., Herron, D. J., Dhooge, L. J., & Barkacs, L. (2016). Dynamic business law: The essentials (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Educatio
Note: This is a two-part assignment that consists of two different contract analysis scenarios. Please answer both scenarios on one document, and upload it to Blackboard.Contract analysis scenario one
BBA 3210, Business Law 1 Cou rse Learning Outcomes for Unit VI Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to: 1. Explain Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code pertaining to all types of transactions. 2. Interpret contract and lease assignments 2.1 Articulate the specific obligations of sellers/lessors and buyers/lessees. Reading Assignment Chapter 15: Formation and Performance of Sales and Lease Contracts, pp. 291 –308 Chapter 16: Sales and Lease Contracts: Performance, Warranties, and Remedies, pp. 312 –328 Unit Lesson Th e Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) The UCC was created for businesses and organizations that pur chase products to provide clarity and consistency to sales laws. The UCC can apply to many different organizations. For example, the University of Minnesota is considered to be a merchant under the UCC. The UCC affects many businesses and organizations, th us each needs to be aware of the applicable laws. Article 2 (2002) of the UCC governs sales contracts for the sale of goods. Article 2(A) of the UCC governs lease contracts. The Case Opener of Crown Castle Inc. et al. v. Fred A. Nudd Corporation et al. (2008 ) raised the question of whether cell towers are tangible goods and , therefore, controlled by UCC Article 2 (Kubasek, Browne, Herron, Dhooge, & Barkacs, 2016). The distinction matters because in that jurisdiction, the statute of limitations for breach o f contract is six years, whereas it is four years under the UCC. The court held as a matter of law that the four -year statute of limitations under UCC Section 2 -725 applied as the cell towers were considered to be tangible goods, despite their very nature to be attached to real estate, which is not a tangible good under the UCC. The UCC applies to anyone who buys and sells goods; however, it makes an important distinction between a merchant and a regular buyer or seller. The distinction is the assumption that a merchant has a stronger ability to watch out for himself or herself than do es an ordinary buyer or seller. There are four ways that an entity qualifies as a merchant. If someone regularly sells goods as a business, employs others to sell these goods, works for a person selling the goods, or self -identifies as a merchant, then that entity is a “merchant” under the rules of Article 2. In this case, a private citizen is clearly not a merchant. Consequently, the UCC does not apply the same standard of care to the citizen’s behavior; it places greater duties on merchants. Therefo re, a common issue often litigated is whether or not a party to a contract is considered to be a merchant or a private citizen. The UCC varies from common law contract rules. For example, it creates a new category of offers: the firm offer. Under UCC Sect ion 2 -205, offers made by merchants are considered to be “firm” if the offer (1) is made in writing and (2) gives assurances that it will be irrevocable for up to three months, despite a lack of consid eration for the irrevocability. In addition to the firm offer rule, there are other variations from common law contract. For example, the mirror – image rule does not apply under the UCC. Furthermore, there is no requirement for additional consideration when a cont ract is modified under the UCC. UNIT VI STUDY GUIDE Sales and Lease Contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code BBA 3210, Business Law 2 UNIT x STUDY GUIDE Title Sales Contr acts Under the UCC There are four scenarios for sales contracts under the UCC. In each, the title, risk of loss, and insurable interest pass at different times. The following sales scenarios are included: 1. simple delivery contract, 2. co mmon -carrier delivery contract, 3. goods -in-bailment contract, and 4. conditional sales contract. Business managers must understand the rights and obligations of businesses to engage in efficient business transactions. The UCC requires good faith in the performance and enforcement of every contract. Obligations for sellers and lessors are different from the obligations of buyers and lessees. The “perfect tender rule” governs sellers and lessors, whereas the general obligation is stated for buyers and lessees. This rule indicates th at if goods or tender of delivery fail in any way to conform to the contract, the buyer/lessee has the right to accept the goods with the defects, reject the entire shipment, or accept part and reject part. This rule is subject to certain exceptions such a s industry norms, exceptions outlined in the parties’ agreement, sellers/lessor’s right to cure, excuse from performance when goods are destroyed through no fault of the parties, substantial impairment, a nd commercial impracticability. Buyers/lessees also possess specific obligations. In addition to the obvious requirements of acceptance and payment for conforming goods according to the contract, buyers/lessees are required to inspect the goods within a reasonable timeframe to ensure that they conform to t he s pecifications of the agreement. Warranties Definition of a warranty: A warranty is an assurance, either express or implied, by one party that the other party can rely on its representations. In sales, this is a binding promise regarding a product sho uld the product fail to meet the manufacturer’s or seller’s p romises (Kubasek et al., 2016). The UCC significantly diverges from common law with respect to warranties, particularly implied warranties. With common law, the only implied warranty is the impl ied warranty of assignability; all other warranties must be explicitly contracted. Warranties generally impose certain dut ies on the seller/lessor. The UCC establishes three basic categories: 1. warranties of title; 2. express warranties; and, 3. implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and trade usage. In the textbook, Webster v. Blue Ship Tea Room, Inc. (1964) focuses on the merchantability of food (Kubasek et al., 2016). For additional information and a more recent case that used Webster v. Blue Ship Tea Room to render a similar decision, read the case of Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court , 922 P.2d 1292 (1992) . Warranty rights of third -parties: The UCC allows for three possibilities: (1) seller’s warranties extend to the buyer’s household members and guests; (2) seller’s warranties extend to any reasonable and foreseeable user; or (3) seller’s warranties extend to anyone injured by the good. Every state in the United States has accepted the UCC, and each state has decided w hich level of protection shal l be extended to third parties. References Kubasek, N., Browne, M. N., Herron, D. J., Dhooge, L. J., & Barkacs, L. (2016). Dynamic business law: The essentials (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw -Hill Education. U.C.C. § 2 (amended 2002).