Transcript Case Scenarios: Grocery, Inc.

Case Scenarios:
Grocery, Inc.
LAW/421
Grocery, Inc. UCC

Grocery, Inc. is a retail grocery store based in Any
State, U.S.A. and has stores located throughout the
United States. In this case scenario:
• Does Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) apply to
the contracts between Grocery, Inc. and its vendors?
 Yes, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applies to the contracts
between Grocery, Inc. and its vendors.
• Do common law contracts apply?
 Yes, common law contracts apply to each individual location.
• Compare and contrast common law contracts and UCC Article 2
contracts.
 Common law applies to contracts originated and/or performed within a
single jurisdiction or state.
Grocery, Inc. Renovations
Grocery,
Inc. Contracted with Company A
to renovate the store on Main Street in My
Town, U.S.A. In this scenario:
• Grocery, Inc. contracted with company A.
Grocery. Inc. was not aware of the subcontract.
• Company A is responsible for the poor
workmanship of Company B.
• Grocery, Inc. Wins.
Grocery, Inc. (Jeff)
Jeff
purchased a car from Steve at the
local used car lot. Steve did not ask Jeff
his age. When Jeff lost his job, he retuned
the car, asked to cancel his contract, and
requested a refund. In this scenario:
• The controlling factor here is whether or not Jeff
had the legal ability to enter into a contract with
Steve. If, in this jurisdiction, Jeff did not have the
legal ability to enter into a sales contract, then
the contract is voided because of impossibility.
Gap Filling Rule (Cereal, Inc.)
Grocery,
Inc. has written a contract with
Cereal, Inc. to purchase 20 cases of cereal
per month. After a flood, Cereal, Inc.
suffers severe water damage and they do
not have enough cereal to fulfill the
contract. In this scenario:
Gap Filling Rule (Cereal, Inc.)
• Grocery, Inc. only has the right to cover by
contracting elsewhere for the remaining cases on
the contract. Grocery, Inc must fulfill the part of the
contract that Cereal, Inc. cannot bring to market.
Harry and Tom Breach
of Contract
Tom
told Harry that he would offer his
trains only to Harry when he retired. Tom
sold his trains to David. In this scenario:
• Three items must be established to call upon
promissory estoppel
 When a person makes a false statement to another and
the listener relies on what was told to him/her in good
faith and to his/her disadvantage.
 A Promisor
 The Promisee
Harry and Tom Breach
of Contract
Harry
Wins in This Scenario
Because:
Facts for Harry
 Relied
on the statement that Harry told him
 Built a 2000 square ft room for trains in which he
had a financial loss
Facts
 Tom
for Tom
told Harry he was going to be the only one
he sold the trains to
 Tom breach the contract when he sold the trains
to another friend
Grocery, Inc. (Jason)
 Jason
shipped a truckload of peaches from his
orchard to Grocery, Inc. using an
independent trucker. In route, the truck
broke down and the shipment was delayed
three days. The peaches were spoiled when
they arrived. The terms of the contract were
F.O.B


Who bears the risk? Explain your answer.
Supplier Inc. (Bill)
Supplier
Inc. sued Grocery Inc. for
breach of contract for not placing order
worth $550. In this case Grocery Inc. is
arguing that Bill was not able to agree to
the terms. Supplier Inc. stating that there
was an Oral agreement to the terms and
signing of standard contract



Is there a contract?
What are the terms of the contract?
Oral testimony at trial
References
 Melvin,
S. (2011). The legal envorinment of business:
A managerial approach: Theory to practice. New
York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
 University
of Phoenix. (unk). Case Scenarios:
Grocery, Inc. unk: University of phoenix.
 Contracts
fob law and legal definition. (July, 2013
26). Retrieved from
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/contracts-fob/