Assignment Week 2
Daisy Taylor
Business Law
May 12, 2016
Professor Goldstein
Keller Graduate School of Management
Chapter 14 problem 2
Real property: Robert Briggs v. Winfield and Emma Sackett
Statute of Frauds and Equitable Exceptions is a rule enforced by many states concerning certain contracts. The states statutes are virtually uniform in that they require contracts involving interest in land, one year plus, considerations in marriage, more than one year contracts and many other contracts to be in writing. Common sense tells us that any contract that is very important should be in writing. This is important because in case of any breaches in a contract, then there is solid evidence to help in dealing with the issue at hand (Tepper,
…show more content…
v. Avon Products, Inc.
Remedies for Breach of Traditional and E-Contracts are many including Specific performance. This is a remedy to breach of a contract that orders a party to perform the acts promised in the contract, it is usually awarded in cases involving unique subject matters like land, sales, paintings and heirlooms. Therefore, specific performance is a good remedy for the case on contract between Liz Claiborne and Avon products (Cheeseman, 2004).
When the two companies formed the merge, the profits recorded were very high and therefore when Avon breaches the contract, Claiborne will suffer economically. Money alone cannot resolve the issue and thus, an order for Avon to perform the contractual duties as originally agreed is most effective. The underlying contact between the two was equitable and fair thus specific performance is enforceable. Moreover, the agreed performance of the contract has been substantially performed and the concurrent future performance is assured thus specific performance is most appropriate (Cheeseman, 2004). Chapter 18 problem
…show more content…
Farrar Produce Company v. International Paper Company
There are many remedies for Breach of Sales and Lease Contracts inclusive of this is revocation of acceptance. Revocation follows acceptance of goods and prevents the initial acceptance by the buyer from binding the buyer to the contract. Revocation is done by the buyer when the goods are nonconforming like the tomato boxes in the case study (Miller & Cross, 2013).
Farrar wins the case because, it is allowed by the UCC to revoke a contract when the nonconformity of the products substantially impairs the value of the company after accepting the boxes. Moreover, the Company was not aware of the nonconformity of the products they purchased due to difficulty of discovery before accepting the boxes. Lastly, the revocation was done within a reasonable time since they had not used all the boxes. Due to the revoking acceptance law, Farrar wins the case against the International Paper Company (Miller & Cross,