What are the possible outcomes? Explain your answers.
When looking at this case scenario there seems to be only one possible outcome for this scenario. Jeff was underage at the time of contract and under the law this contract was not valid. Steve the salesperson was completely liable under the law for entering a contract with an underage minor. As a car company representative there is protocol which must be used when entering into any contract and a major part of protocol is to ensure that both parties are of legal age at the time of sale. Another possibility that may be a remedy for this situation is for Car Company to take legal action against Jeff?s legal guardians. Under the law any minor who misrepresents themselves intentionally by entering into a contract without parental consent can be have legal action taken against them. The action will be taken against the legal guardians of the minor and all remaining liabilities will be the responsibility of the guardians if decide by a judge. Disaffirm is commonly applied in situations where an individual has made an agreement and opts to cancel it, which he or she may do by right—such as a minor who disaffirms a contract. Disaffirming a contract is “When the minor decides not to perform the legal obligations contemplated in the agreement and thus disaffirms the contract, this action results in a voidable contract. The minor has the option to either performing the contract or avoiding it.” (Davidson 276).
Analyze the gap filling provisions of UCC Article 2 as they pertain to the terms of this contract. What rights or defenses, if any, does Cereal, Inc. have under contract law? CASE SCENARIO: GROCERY, INC 4 Analyze the remedies available to Grocery, Inc. and Cereal, Inc. Explain all answers in detail.
Grocery Inc. had written a contract with Cereal, Inc. to purchase 20 cases of cereal per a month at 22$ per a case. However the contract did not state the types of cereal or how the 20 cases will be divided among grocery Inc.?s 20 stores in any state. However, there was a flood that complicated everything and drastically changed the delivery expectations. Grocery Inc. received 15 cases and did not get the full 20 on time. Because of this it not only complicated everything for Grocery INC. but they want to cancel the agreement with Cereal Inc. because they failed to produce the right amount of shipments. Because Cereal Inc. failed to live up to its commitment it would than mean that Grocery Inc. has a full right to reject the shipments as well as cancel the contract because none of the terms were met. Therefore the Grocery Inc. has a full right to reject the contract since the terms of the contract were not completed.
Under contract law, Grocery does not have the right to reject the shipment because the original contract did not state the types of cereal or how the cereal would be divided up. The buyer has the right to reject the delivery when the goods fail to conform to the contract (U.C.C. 2-601). In this case, the contract did not state the types of cereals or the division of the cereals. In addition, under U.C.C. 2-613, Grocery cannot reject the delivery because Cereal was able to provide a partial of the order and is protected because the damage to Cereal Inc’s warehouse was without fault of either party before the risk of loss passed to the buyer. Although, Grocery Inc sent a facsimile to Cereal Inc requesting a variety of cereals and how they would like them distributed, Grocery did not give Cereal Inc reasonable notice to conform to their request due to the natural disaster destroying their inventory (Mallor, 476). Cereal, Inc is claiming that their partial delivery is protected by the gap-filling rule of UCC Article 2-204(3) which is correct. UCC 2-204(3) states “ Even though one or more terms are left open a contract for sale does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a contract and there is a reasonably certain basis for giving an appropriate remedy (Cornell Law School; http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-204.html). The appropriate remedy that Cereal provided was a partial delivery of goods to three stores. Cereal, Inc is also protected because the original contract did not specify cereal types and distribution. Grocery, Inc can request damages based on difference between value of goods received and value of goods if they had been as warranted (Mallor, 499) since Cereal was unable to fulfill the contract or the written modification to the contract.