Case Study 1
Erica contracted to purchase a giant 72” television from Hometown Electronics with the delivery included in the purchase. Thus, Erica had a contract for goods and services where the sale of the good predominates and is covered under UCC Article 2 (Business Law II, Week II, Nature and Form of Sales, 2014) (U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002)). If Erica had participated in a cash sale that was concurrent that did not require delivery she would have taken possession of the goods at the time of sale (Twomey & Jennings, , 2011, pp. 381, 539). This concurrent condition did not occur as Erica and Hometown Electronics had a verbal agreement for the delivery of the television to her home. Per UCC Article 2 there is a supports this subsequent condition by the fact that Hometown electronics acted upon this condition as additional terms of acceptance in attempting to deliver the television (Twomey & Jennings, , 2011, pp. 380, 471) (U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002)).
Delivery terms were FOB destination because of the subsequent condition that Hometown Electronics acted upon at the time of the agreement concerning delivery. The third party to the contract, delivery truck, got in an accident when attempting to deliver the television. Therefore, the title to the goods, and the responsibility for them, transfers to the third party (Twomey & Jennings, , 2011, p. 497). Hometown Electronics is required to find a substitute television because the risk of loss did not pass to Erica until it arrived at her home (Twomey & Jennings, , 2011, p. 505).
Once delivery has occurred, it is Hometown Electronics responsibility demand Erica’s timely inspection of the television to ensure that there is no damage and that it operates according to manufacturer specifications per Revised UCC §2-316(3)(b) (Twomey & Jennings, , 2011, p. 527) (U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002)). If the damage is total, requiring replacement, the seller has the option to void the contract with a refund for the Television if payment previously occurred or has the right to cure (Twomey & Jennings, , 2011, pp. 505, 543). If the damage was partial and material, the buyer has the option to avoid the contract accept a substitute television subject to an allowance from the contract price therefore seeking damages for the goods’ diminished value (Twomey & Jennings, , 2011, pp. 505, 542, 543).
Prior to acceptance, the buyer has the right of inspection and rejection of goods (Twomey & Jennings, , 2011, pp. 542-543). When no defects are found and there are no grounds to reject the television it is Erica’s duty of Erica to accept the television (Twomey & Jennings, , 2011, p. 543). Acceptance is accomplished through express acceptance or after Erica has had a reasonable opportunity to inspect the television (Twomey & Jennings, , 2011, pp. 543,544).
Case Study 2
The sale of food and drink carries an implied merchantability where the food must be of average quality and fit for its...