Second Examination - Term Paper Example

Second Examinations The partners Jack Power and Joseph Control are bound together under the Uniform Commercial (UCC). In this case, Joseph Control is the buyer while Jack Power is the seller. Both Jack and Joseph have legal rights bounding each in their operations as merchants. The case is relevant to the UCC because it encompasses sales, negotiations and bulk transfer (Brown & Sukys, p 209).
Joseph Control’s Rights
Joseph has the right to reject goods. In case, the goods fail to conform to the contract stipulations or the quality breaches in any perspective. The buyer can reject the goods in part or the whole quantity [UCC 2-601, 2A-509)] If Joseph rejects the goods, he may acquire the cover, cancel the contract or sue the seller in the court of law as if the seller never delivered the goods (Miller, p 274).
Joseph has the right to recover damages for the accepted goods. Joseph can accept the damaged portion of his goods, hold them and inform Jack (the seller) on the breach of contract. This information would prevent the buyer from pursuing any remedy [UCC 2-607(3), 2A-516(3)]. In Jack and Joseph’s case the goods delivered are, not as promised, the extent of damages would be the difference in price between the goods during the acceptance, and the value if they would have been delivered as warranted [UCC 2-714(2), 2A-519(4)] (Miller, p 271).
Joseph has the right of inspection. Joseph as the buyer has an unconditional right to vet the goods before making payment. This right allows the buyer to assess the goods before making any payments to ensure that they conform to the contracted specifications (Miller, p 272). The buyer should only make payments on goods if the goods delivered maintain their quality similar to those contracted. An opportunity for inspection is therefore a condition precedent to the right of the seller or lessor to enforce payment [UCC 2-513(1), 2A-515(1)]. In case the goods are rejected because they are not conforming, the buyer can recover the costs of inspection from the seller [UCC 2-513(2)].
Jack Power’s Rights
Jack has a right to cancel the contract the seller has a right to rescind the contract if the buyer breach the contract [UCC 2-703(f), 2A-523(1)(a)]. The seller has to notify the buyer promptly and at this point, the seller is discharged of obligations. The buyer is not discharged of all obligations and the seller can pursue the available remedies under the UCC for breach. Jack is right to cancel the contract (Miller, p 272).
Jack has the right to withhold delivery. The seller can withhold the performance of their obligations under the sale contracts when the buyer or the lessee is in breach. This is true whether the buyer or lessee has wrongfully rejected or revoked the acceptance of contract goods failed to make acceptance or repudiated the contract [UCC 2-703(a), 2A-523(1)(c)] (Miller, p 271).
Judgment
Therefore, Jack and Joseph are liable to occurrences in this case since they are affected in various perspectives (Brown & Sukys, p 220). For first, Jack sent a letter spelling the conflict on the tariff that increased the cost of shipping, but Joseph remained silent for ten days. According to UCC’s silence as acceptance, “By your silence and inaction, you will be deemed to have accepted this offer.” This rule would be relevant since an offeree should not be put under the burden of liability to act with the assent in order to reject an offer (Miller, p 267). Joseph had not gained the repossession of the goods from the shipper, and realized they were damaged. The second shipment was damaged on transit. Where a tender or delivery of goods so fails to conform to the contract as to give a right of rejection the risk of their loss remains on the seller until cure or acceptance [UCC 2-510(1)] (Miller, p 271). A relevant case that can offer a solution to this scenario is the case of Maple Farms, Inc. v. City School District of Elmira. The doctrine of commercial impracticability requires first that a contingency–something unexpected-must have occurred. Second, the risk of an unexpected occurrence must not have been allocated either by agreement or by custom (Miller, p 267). Therefore, Jack is liable for damages of the goods. Nonetheless, Joseph has to cover the additional cost of shipping before rejection or claiming to avoid the breach of contract.
Work Cited
Miller, L. R., Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases. (3rd Ed). West Port: Cengage Learning, 2012 (p 158 – 283).
Brown, W. G. & Sukys, A. P. Business Law: With UCC Applications. (9th Ed). New York: McGraw Hill, 1997 (p 208-222) Read More