Legal Case Questions


LegalCase Questions

Question 4:Sunkissed Pools maintained that the risk of loss of the heaterhad been passed to Helen Thomas. On the other hand, Helen Thomas alsomaintained that failure to install the heater was a breach ofcontract. But who should be held responsible for the loss of theheater? The person held responsible for the risk of loss of theheater is the buyer, Helen Thomas. The reason for this is in regardto the risk of loss in the shipment contracts. In this contract forshipment, the installation of the heater is only part of thecontract, but the risk of loss is passed to the buyer since theheater is already delivered to the buyer (Twomey &amp Jennings,2004). Here, the seller, Sunkissed Pools, is not held liable for theloss or insurable unless the seller had stated beforehand, somethingwhich she did not.

Question 6:After buying an automobile with a bad check, the check was laterdishonored. The dealer later filed a suit against the party that hadbought the automobile at the auction. Was the dealer right to claimback the automobile? No. The dealer is not entitled. The situationfalls under auction sales, such that when the goods are sold at anauction, whether with minimal awareness to its history, each lot is adifferent transaction between different parties. The independentnature of the sale to the third party does not warrant the originalsale interfere with the current buyer (Twomey &amp Jennings, 2004).This law is applied such that the dealer is seen to have no right tothe automobile despite the original bad check.

Question 13: Grissom entered onto a land deal withoutpermission and went ahead to sell the timber. The owner learnt aboutit and brought an auction to recover hi timber. The purchaser arguedhe was a genuine purchaser with value in payment, and was entitled toremain with the timber. In this case, the purchaser is innocent ofthe case, but should not be allowed to keep the timber. The casefalls under the law of passage of bailments’ titles (Twomey &ampJennings, 2004). A thief is not allowed to pass the title of thegoods to a good faith purchaser, and therefore, the purchaser mustsurrender the goods to the original owner.

Question 7: Thewritten contract following Avery’s purchase of the refrigeratorshowed the sell as it is, and thus all warranties were excluded.Unfortunately, the refrigerator stopped working a few weeks later.Avery complained that the exclusion of all warranties werenon-abiding and unconscionable. Was Avery correct? Yes. Avery posed anecessity of defect, and he must show that the refrigerator becamedefective because of either a manufacturing defect or due to designeffect (Twomey &amp Jennings, 2004). Here, it is important thatwarranties are included regardless of the buyer’s innocence.

Question 10:Zogarts came up with and sold a practicing device to all beginnergolfers. The device indicated that everything was safe as per thepackage’s statements, and that the golfers would never injurethemselves while using them. With denial of liability opinionmatters, liability would therefore not on them. Was this a validdefense? Yes, it was a valid defense. The golfer getting injured dueto defective condition of the device is entitled to recover from theseller because of damages as a result of negligence (Twomey &ampJennings, 2004). However, the golfer should be in a position to showthe negligence of the seller.

Question 15: The1991 Ford was purchased by Brian Felley from Tom and Cheryl Singeltonwith 126,000 miles covered. The car was ruled out as “in goodmechanical condition”. For $5,800, Felley later took it to the shopto fix the clutch for $947.76. Subsequent expenses followedthereafter, which forced Felley to bring forth suit for the breach ofexpress warranty. Was an express warranty breached? Yes. The lawstates that if the express warranty is false, which in this case issince Felley was duped of the car’s conditioning, then the warrantyis breached. From this case, it is evident that the seller is liable.

Question 14:Harry Ulmas signed a contract to buy a new car from Oldsmobile.With trade-in valued at $650 with specification of repraisals, Ulmaswas only offered $50 by Acey for the trade-in, but he refused andinstead bought the car from a new dealer. Ulmas sued for the breachof contract based on good faith violation. Was he right? Yes. Ulmaswas led to a deal that was not adhered to. Twomey &amp Jennings(2004) noted that the law on violation of faith states that the dealshould be mutually exclusive between both parties, and failure to doso would warrant the seller to sue the buy on breach of contract.

Question 9:Wolosin bought a dairy and vegetable case from the EvansManufacturing Corp. Wolosin was sued by Evans in which it claimeddamages for the breach of warranty. The contract sales offered thatEvans is going to replace the defective parts for free. Under thebreach of warranty, UCC does not allow an exception to exemption ofthe sales talk liability. When Wolosin is sure of the Evans’sknowledge about the market, then the he is entitled to belief thathis statement of dairy and vegetable refrigerator is easilyobtainable, which also forms part of a bargain. Under UCC, Wolosinought to be provided with alternatives in order to recover from thebreach of contract.

Question 10:McInnis purchased a scraper and a tractor from Western Tractor &ampEquipment Company. The contract signed states that the seller haddeclaimed all the warranties and no other warranties existed, but inthe contract. The equipment had only been used for 68 hours fordemonstration. The hours were set to zero, but the buyer had sued theseller for damages. The seller defended his case on grounds thatthere was declaim on the liability of warranties. Was the defensevalid? Yes. This is because under the UCC, Twomey &amp Jennings(2004) states that liability of warranties dictates that the defensefor recovery of damaged goods is guaranteed and again recovers fromthe sellers’ defense. McInnis therefore, is able to acquirealternatives to his buys.

Question 15: Thepurchase of a boring mill by Stephan’s Machine &amp Tool from theD&ampH Machinery is a specialized kind of equipment. The loan usedto buy exhausted the seller’s borrowing capacity. Unfortunately,the mill was not fit, and the buyer sued the selling company forspecific performance as it was signed in replacement agreement. Isspecific performance recommended remedy? No. This is because underUCC, the pre-Code law is preserved on such instances of the buyerdefrauded by the seller, as is the case of Stephan (Twomey &ampJennings, 2004). False replacement agreement can result in damagessustained.


Twomey, D. P., &amp Jennings, M. (2004). Business law: Principlesfor today`s commercial environment. Mason, Ohio:Thomson/South-Western West.