Grocery, Inc in the United States - Case Study Example

Though the case was a bit weak, ultimately, it was Grocery who won the battle. While the agreement clearly stated that the Masterpiece was given the contract at a certain price and had to complete it within the specified time frame, there was no written clause stating that the contract could not be handed over to a sub-contractor. Thus Masterpiece argued that it had done so in the best interests of both the parties involved.

John W. Ralls in “Subcontractor May Pursue Claim for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in Contract but May Not Pursue a Cardinal Change Theory.” June 11, 2001, explains a similar case in Wyoming.
“The trial court reasoned that clear and unambiguous language in the contract documents established that the general contractor could make changes to the work, including deducting from the work.”
Grocery argued that it was not mentioned that the contract would not be handed over to a sub-contractor without the consent of both parties because the agreement was signed by a trainee, who was not even a major and had no idea or experience about the subject.

The major argument, however, was that Masterpiece failed to inform Grocery about the subcontracting of the work to Build To Fall, which was a breach of trust.


Also, there are certain implied standards of construction, which were not adhered to by either Masterpiece or Build to Fall.
The Hon’ble court gave the judgment that Masterpiece had indeed resorted to a breach of trust and ordered Masterpiece to redo the whole job, without any extra compensation and within four months; or else pay a damage claim of $ XYZ.
Grocery was also warned not to get agreements signed by trainees, who were not only underage but were not familiar with the legal implications of their actions.

Case 2

The possible outcomes of the case could be:
1. Jeff is to pay a fine or face punishment for concealing his age while applying for the car loan.
2. The salesman is to face a penalty for not verifying the borrower’s age or loan repayment history while signing the contract.
3. Since Jeff is still a minor, his parents might be contacted and asked to transfer the loan in their name and repay the loan according to the same terms and conditions.
4. Smooth Sales may be asked to pay a sum equal to the current market value of the car to Jeff, after deducting an amount equal to the administrative charges and suit charges.

In Case of Style: Missouri State Credit Union, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Danny J. Wilson and Carole J. Wilson, Defendants-Appellants, Hand down Date: 11/21/2005, it was stated as follows:

“The parties agree that this is a case of first impression in Missouri as Missouri courts have not specifically addressed whether a creditor is obligated to apply proceeds from a foreclosure sale to all loans in default secured by the same collateral under a master or umbrella loan agreement. Both parties claim the resolution of the matter is governed by section 400.9-601(a), which provides in pertinent part,
(a) After default, a secured party has the rights provided in this part and, except as otherwise provided in section 400.9-602, those provided by agreements of the parties. A secured party:

(1) May reduce a claim to judgment, foreclose, or otherwise enforce the claim, security interest, or agricultural lien by any available judicial procedure;
and section 400.9-615(a), which provides in pertinent part,
(a) A secured party shall apply or pay over for application the cash proceeds of disposition under section 400.9-610 in the following order to:
. . . .
(2) The satisfaction of obligations secured by the security interest
or agricultural lien under which the disposition is made.”
On similar lines, Jeff could claim the amount due to him after the repossession and sale of the car by Smooth Sales. Read More