The First Legal Point
Definition
The Uniform Commercial Code was chosen as a civil law code for the first legal point. According to Eisenberg, the peculiarities of the Uniform Commercial Code highlight contract as “the fact [is that essential purpose of a contract between commercial actors] is actual performance” (264).
Analysis
The defendant can argue that High Stakes Entertainment has almost completed its contract. The contract period was six months, from September 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021 (High Stakes Entertainment). A newspaper clipping provided by Seven Rays refers to the second week of February 2021 (High Stakes Entertainment). Therefore, High Stakes Entertainment accomplished almost 100% of the contract. The plaintiff can argue with these statements by declining them by stating specific points of agreement between High Stakes Entertainment and Seven Rays. Although advertisements in the Canadian newspaper appeared at the end of the contract, they cannot override a violation of a particular clause, which is the term of the agreement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is important to stress that the problem was caused by violating one of the fundamental principles of the Uniform Commercial Code, which is the actual performance of commercial actors. Therefore, the plaintiff may insist on the right of Seven Rays to claim the total amount of the money, as the breach of the contract is established no matter what period it was breached.
The Second Legal Point
Definition
For the second legal point, the Sale of Goods Act was chosen. As McKendrick states, “The Sale of Goods Act is subject to the contrary intent of the parties” (6).
Analysis
In the second law point, the defendant can state that there is no particular evidence that High Stakes Entertainment gave a license and agreed with Canadian cinema. Therefore, it can be considered an unintended action. In opposition, the plaintiff can argue that this advertisement in the Canadian newspaper depicts the absence of the appropriate control of High Stakes Entertainment of their film production. (High Stakes Entertainment). Consequently, this fact entitles Seven Rays to claim the entire amount of money.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is important to stress that the differences between the parties to the agreement are also determined by the fact of the parties’ contrary intents, which is reflected in the Sale of Goods Act. Therefore, the plaintiff may claim that the company needed to follow the contract terms and take particular steps to implement the Seven Rays clause as a sole source, without competition from other theaters in the market.
References
Eisenberg, Melvin. Foundational Principles of Contract Law. Oxford University Press, 2018.
High Stakes Entertainment – Case Text [Word document].
McKendrick, Ewan. Sale of Goods. Taylor & Francis, 2020.