CLTC 11.1: Critical legal thinking indicates that the coins were sent for approval within 14 days. This means that the contract of sale does not play a vital role at this point. Therefore, Numismatic bears the risk of loss and will not win a lawsuit against Prewitt.
CLTC 11.3: Once the sea waybill was sent to Robert Pease Citizen, ownership passed from YachtSales to Pease Citizen. The goods need not be delivered for the title to give from the buyer to the seller. This right follows from UCC 2-401(3)(a).
CLTC 11.5: The Rolls-Royce Corniche will come out as the winner. Since this car was technically stolen, the transfer of ownership never took place. Rolls-Royce retained the title all along. Under UCC 2-403(1) (Helewitz, 2019), this case involves an invalid tag. Thus, Rolls-Royce would win the lawsuit and retain the car.
CLTC 11.7: The whole country will benefit. This contract of sale specifies “seller’s FOB factory. This means that the seller is responsible for costs and risk of loss until the shipment arrives at the buyer. This is consistent with UCC 2-319(1)(a) and UCC 2-319(1)(b).
CLTC 12.1: In this case, Hartz wins. The Appellant guaranteed 80 percent germination. No nonconforming beans were supplied, which would allow the product to be rejected under the Commercial Code, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 85-2-601 (Add.1971). The seller did not guarantee that the Georgia plant committee would not make an error.
CLTC 12.3: The trial court erred in finding that the sale of plaintiff’s lien was made in a commercially reasonable manner. Based on this court’s ruling on the second and third counts of error, the appellant cannot prove that the sale of the lien was not prejudicial to his position.
CLTC 12.5: The winner, in this case, will be Archer. Archer’s right to reclamation under § 546 of the Bankruptcy Code and § 2.702 of the Texas UCC trumps the rights and interests in the property belonging to the debtor-in-possession. Therefore, the bankruptcy court did not err when it denied Charter priority status over Archer as a lien creditor under Texas law.
CLTC 12.7: It was not until the initiation of this litigation that Daniels learned of the magnitude of the problem. Such conduct on the part of Yazoo can hardly be viewed as notification of the breach.See Eastern, 532 F.2d at 978. Accordingly, this court thinks that Yazoo’s counterclaim should be dismissed. A separate judgment shall be entered according to the local rules.
CLTC 12.9: The trial court erred in holding that the sale of the plaintiff’s collateral was commercially reasonable.” Based upon the disposition of the cross-appellant’s second and third assignments of error by this court, the cross-appellant can show no error prejudicial to her position arising out of the sale of the collateral. This assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is modified as hereinbefore stated and, as changed, is affirmed.
Briefing The Case Writing Assignment
- Phillips 66 Company agreed to buy up to 4,000,000 bottles from CBC by December 31, 1986.
- The contract was not performed because the quality and quantity of the produced bottles did not satisfy the buyer, and the defendant decided to suspend the contract.
- The issue in the case is that the plaintiff decided that there was a breach of contract.
- The court ruled in favor of the defendant because the quality of the produced bottles made the contract invalid, meaning that the plaintiff failed to fulfill his obligations.
Reference
Helewitz, J. A. (2019). Basic contract law for paralegals. Wolters Kluwer.