Business law - contracts, summary to UCC, and FIRAC on a case - Essay Example

Law 2. The Silvestri’s case is genuine besides the contracted deal with his employer. This is because the complaints that the company receives might not have emanated from Silvestri’s actions or performance. Probably, the predicaments might have yielded from other staffs that aided in resolving technical support under his authority or existed prior the term of employment. Hence, coincidentally erupted during his term of employment where the employer owing to the overwhelming cases assumed it was Silvestri’s failure.

The employer in blaming the Silvestri accountable will be after one year or after the completion of one term, but in this case there no definite time. Besides, there is not evidence that can act as a proof.3. Yes, since Light did not produce the quality services, which they had agreed and contracted prior the start of the exercise. In addition, the liquidated damages were also evident in the contract, which they had instituted besides each swearing to fulfill.3. No. This is because after Hart had entered into a contract with Brand Smith Roofing, he wrote to them two times before and after contracting with Broadview Roofing & Remodeling Inc.

Brand Smith Roofing did not respond and nowhere making efforts to resurface, but continued to make Hart wait indefinitely. Unfortunately, during the case ruling, the magistrate unlawfully favors Brand Smith Roofing. Since, he failed to enforce the compensation of damages incurred by Hart.9. Yes. Because, Creighton University after assuring Ross of undivided attention regarding helping him to improve the academic prowess, it prompted him do courses that could not enable in the attainment of a degree.

These encompass marksmanship and theory of basketball, though, he had failed with a D (96/128 marks).UCC 2.201 Summary The statute refutes the enforcement of goods worth $500 or over especially in the event of action or defense (LII). This is only applicable where there is an indication of a contract, which proves there was an agreement made besides the signature (by the complainant either via his broker or via the agent) that allowed occurrence of the intended transaction (subsection 1). Suppose the aforementioned case (subsection 1) entails merchants within a rational duration, there will be receiving of written confirmation against the sender (LII).

Here, the recipient has the privilege of knowing its contents, which have to satisfy the above case where its objection will be by a written notice offered within ten days after receiving. Additionally, contract that does not effectively satisfy the necessities of the subsection (1), but is legitimate in other respects is enforceable (LII).Work CitedLegal Information Institute - LII. U. C. C.: 2-201 Formal Requirements; Statute of Frauds. n.d. Web. 12Th June 2012.