1. The obligations of sellers/lessors and buyers/lessees are determined by (1) terms the parties outline in agreements, (2) custom, and (3) rules outlined by the Uniform Commercial Code, such as the various implied warranties described previously.
2. Good faith is the honesty in a person’s actions and intentions during the Agreement of the contract. It encompasses a wide range of ethical behaviors, such as not lying or committing fraud and respecting the other party. Commercial reasonableness consists of commercial standards of fair dealing, which are required of merchants in addition to honesty.
3. Since this transaction consists of buying and selling a tangible good (a dog) and Bernadette Vicidomine is a merchant, this falls under UCC. As a result, the court should rule in favor of Linda Budd as she was under the impression that she was purchasing a healthy dog from a professional merchant and didn’t disclose the dog’s illness.
4. No, even if the buyer bought the artwork in good faith, the buyer can’t ignore the original Agreement between the Art Gallery and the Plaintiff. Therefore, all parties must obey the rules regarding needing permission from the Plaintiff to transfer/sell artwork.
5. Yes, Sarah Jane can sue because, as an intended third-party beneficiary of the ring, she was lied to about the ring’s value. This is a breach of express warranty.
6. Since Priscilla likes eating at this restaurant, she is aware of the risks of eating seafood. There are practical expectations of eating food with bones, which means the food she consumes isn’t unfit. She would have a case if the food was undercooked or contaminated.
7. No, it isn’t a breach of the implied warranties under UCC Article 2. There is an inherent risk when eating seafood, as it comes from fish, which have bones. Similar to the question above, these are practical expectations of eating seafood. She would have a case if the food was undercooked or contaminated.
8. “Merchantable quality” means the pet is healthy and has no significant illnesses or defects that would interfere with the pet’s quality of life. If the undescended testicle is detrimental to the dog’s life, then it would be considered a breach of merchantability, and the court should rule in favor of Mrs. Dempsey.
9. A cure is a breaching party’s right to provide conforming goods when nonconforming goods were initially delivered, subject to a reasonable time test. In other words, it allows a seller who has delivered failed goods to conform to the contract and cure the defect. One limit to the right to cure is time, as it no longer applies once it passes a specified time. Another limit is if the party has repeatedly attempted to cure the defects but can’t. The non-breaching party can proceed to a damage claim if the breaching party can’t fix the mistakes.
10. No, Aubrey Reeves can’t rescind the offer since Tandy and Radio Shack were clear and direct when they said they did not support or service software from the source book. Tandy and Radio Shack aren’t at fault for Lizcon’s software; that’s something that Aubrey has to figure out himself.
Created by Mikael La Ferla
Mikael La Ferla 