Contracts 2 Exam I Flashcards
Alexus and Kaitlyn agree that Alexus will sell goods to Kaitlyn “f.o.b” the place of destination. Prior correspondence shows that the price has been adjusted on the assumption that Kaitlyn’s insurance policies will cover the goods during the shipment . Is there mutual understanding?
Notwithstanding the normal meaning of the “f.o.b” term declared in UCC 2-319, it may be found that the parties have “otherwise agreed” under that section that Kaitlyn bears the risk in transit.
Alexus signs a negotiable promissory note payable to Kaitlyn’s order, and Anna signs her name on the back without more. Is the signature an endorsement? Is evidence admissible?
Under UCC 3-402, Anna’s signature is an endorsement, and evidence of a contrary understanding is not admissible except for the purpose of reformation of the instrument. This conclusion does not rest on interpretation of the writing.
Alexus agree to sell beer to Kaitlyn at a specified price per barrel. At the time of the agreement both parties and others in their trade use a standard barrels wooden barrels which originally hold 31 gallons and hold less as they continue in use. A statute defines a barrel as 31 ½ gallons.
The statute does not prevent interpretation of the agreement as referring to the barrels in use.
Alexus agrees to sells and Kaitlyn to buy a quantity of eviscerated “chicken.” A slender “stewing chicken” or “fowl” Kaitlyn rejects on the ground that the contract calls for “broilers” or “fryers.” Each party make a claim for damages against the other. It is found that each acted in good faith and that neither had reason to know of the difference in meaning.
Both claims fail.
Alexus order goods from Kaitlyn, using Alexus’s standard form. Kaitlyn acknowledges the order, using her standard form. Each provides that no terms are agreed to except those on the form and that the other party agrees to the form. One form contains an arbitration clause; the other does not. The goods are delivered and paid for. Later a dispute arises as the quality
There is no agreement to arbitrate the dispute.
Alexus contracts with Kaitlyn to do concrete work on a bridge, to be paid for according to “the number of square yards of concrete surface included in the bridge deck.” An estimate included in the proposal for bids and an estimate submitted by Alexus to Kaitlyn after award are shown to have been based on the top surface only, not including the side and bottom surfaces.
On a finding that this was the mutual understanding, the contract is to be so interpreted.
In a written agreement between Alexus and Kaitlyn it is stated that Kaitlyn owns half of the stock of Anna’s company, that “Alexus has rendered valuable services to Anna company for which Kaitlyn desires to compensate Alexus in the sum of 25,000 payable in the manner hereinafter set forth,” and that Kaitlyn will pay Alexus “one-half of all money received from Anna company, such a dividends, or profits until Alexus has been paid the said amount of 25,000.” It is shown that the written agreement was executed after the services were rendered, that there was no prior explicit understanding that Alexus would be compensated, and that before signing the written agreement Alexus and Kaitlyn orally agreed that the 25,000 was to be a “bonus out of Kaitlyn’s profit,” “doubling or nothing,” “a gamble.” Is the written agreement and the oral agreement read together
The written agreement is to be interpreted in accordance with the oral agreement.
Alexus promises Kaitlyn as follows: “In consideration of your supplying my nephew Anna with China and earthenware during the coming year, I guarantee the payment of any bills you may draw on him on account thereof to the amount of 200” Anna is engaged in the business of selling such goods. Kaitlyn sells Anna 2,000 of china during the year and draws bills for their price in varying amounts. Anna pays 1,000 and then defaults.
Alexus’s promise is to be interpreted as a continuing undertaking, not limited to the first 200 of purchases.
Alexus agrees with her divorced wife Kaitlyn and Anna, trustee, to pay to Anna 1,200 each year for the benefit of Barbara, the 10-year-old son of Alexus and Kaitlyn, until Barbara enters college, and to pay 2,200 each year for the period of Barbara’s higher education but not more than four years. At age 19 Barbara completes high school and is inducted into the army.
Upon a finding that the main purpose of the agreement is to provide for Barbara’s maintenance and education, the agreement is to be interpreted as not required payments during military service.
A written agreement between Alexus and Kaitlyn for the exchange of real estate provides that Alexus and Kaitlyn will each pay a 200 commission to Anna, a broker, “upon the signing of this agreement by both parties hereto.” The last sentence of the agreement states, “The commission being due and payable upon the transfer of the properties.” It is shown that Alexus refused to sign the agreement until the last sentence was added.
The agreement is to be interpreted to make the commission due only when both the signing and the transfer take place.
11) Alexus agrees to appoint Kaitlyn exclusive distributor in a specified area for a new product to be manufactured by Alexus, and Kaitlyn agrees to use her best efforts to promote sale of the product. The written agreement includes an initial retail price list and a provision that Alexus will sell to Kaitlyn at the lowest price and highest discount it gives to any distributor. Whether the parties intend to be bound before any other distributor is appointed or any price fixed is a question of the meaning of the entire agreement in its context.
If they do, the agreement has the effect of an agreement to sell at a reasonable price at the time for delivery.
10) The facts above, there is a local usage in the restaurant trade that Fuel includes electricity used in cooking.
In the absence of contrary indication, Fuel may be read in accordance with the usage. But a provision in the lease that if Kaitlyn installs a new electric range, she will also install a special meter and pay for electricity used by the range would show that the parties did not adopt the local usage.
11) A contract for the sale of meat scraps calls for minimum 50% protein. As both parties know, by a usage of the business in which the are engaged, 49.5 per cent is treated as the equivalent of 50 per cent.
The contract is to be interpreted in accordance with the usage.
12) Alexus discloses to Kaitlyn a secret formula for an antiseptic liquid and Kaitlyn agrees to pay monthly royalties based on amounts sold. Fifty years later the formula has been published in medical journals. After continuing to pay for 25 years more, Kaitlyn contends that the duty to pay royalties ended when the formula ceased to be secret.
Kaitlyn’s conduct strongly negates the contention.
13) Several railroads agree in writing to share working expenses and taxes of X, another railroad, on a “wheelage basis.” For several years they pay shares in proportion to their stock ownership in the other railroad. Then all but one agree that they have been mistaken and that future payments will be made on a basis of use of X’s physical properties.
Stock ownership is so plainly unrelated to any possible meaning of “wheelage” that the course of performance does not support in interpretation of wheelage basis as requiring payments in proportion to stock ownership.
1) Alexus licenses Kaitlyn to manufacture pipes under Alexus’s patents, and Kaitlyn agree to pay “a royalty for 50 cents per 1,000 feet for an output of 5,000,000 or less feet per year, and for an output of over 5,000,000 feet per year at the rate of 30 per cents thousand feet.” The 50 cent rate is payable on the first 5,000,000 feet, the 30 cent rate only on the excess.
The more literal reading is unreasonable, since it would involve a smaller payment for 6,000,000 feet than for 4,000,000 feet.
2) Alexus, an agent of Anna, authorized to make contracts for Anna, writes a letter to Kaitlyn beginning “we offer,” and stating a proposal in detailed and clear language, signed “Anna by Alexus, Agent.” At the bottom of the office stationery which Alexus uses for the offer there is printed “all contracts and orders taken are subject to the approval of the execute office.” Alexus portion of the letter is typed over a portion of this printing.
A jury’s finding that the printed words were not part of the letter and that it is therefore an offer will not be set aside.
3) A charter party contains the printed provision “vessel to have turn in loading.” There is written below this, “vessel to be loaded promptly.”
The printed and written provisions are given the consistent meaning that the vessel shall take its turn in loading, though this involves considerable delay, but when its turn arrives, the vessel shall be loaded promptly.
4) Alexus’s agent Kaitlyn draw checks on the Anna bank, imprinting the amounts with perforations made by a check writing machine. The amounts are also handwritten in figures.
In case of conflict, since the perforated amounts are more difficult to alter, they control the handwritten figures.
• Alexus and her husband convey their ranch to Alexus’s sister and her husband, reserving an option to repurchase. The parties agree orally that the property will be kept in the family, but the deed says nothing as to assignment of the option. If the deed is found to be a partial integration, the oral agreement is effective to show that the option is not assignable.
If the deed is found to be a complete integration, the oral agreement is discharged, and the option is assignable.`
1) Alexus delivers a fur coat to Kaitlyn for storage and receives a warehouse receipt which purports on its face to set forth the terms of the storage contract.
By accepting the receipt, whether or not Alexus reads it or understands it, Alexus assents to its terms.
2) Alexus pays ten cents and checks a parcel in a parcel room in a bus terminal and receives a parcel check three inches long and two and one-half inches wide. The check bears an identifying number and the word contract, both conspicuous, and contractual terms in fine print, but Alexus does not read it or know of the terms until later.
The terms are not part of the checking agreement.
3) Alexus sells plant bulbs to Kaitlyn. Later Alexus delivers with an invoice containing contractual language. Kaitlyn writes on a copy of the invoice “picked up on Oct. 27th” and signs her name.
The invoice terms are not part of the contract
4) Alexus, an insurance company, issues an insurance policy to Kaitlyn covering injuries “by accidental means.” A clause in the policy excludes “disability or other loss resulting from or contributed to by an disease or ailment.” Kaitlyn believes himself to be in good health, but has a latent Parkinson’s disease. Later an accidental blow activates the disease into a disabling condition.
Kaitlyn is covered by the policy without regard to his knowledge or understanding of the quoted language at the time of contracting.
5) Alexus applies to Kaitlyn, an insurance company, for burglary insurance. Kaitlyn issues to Alexus a written binder by which Kaitlyn “agrees to insure property as herein described for amounts subscribed” until a policy is issued. The policy in ordinary use by Kaitlyn includes a provision for cancellation by Kaitlyn notice and requires suit within one year after loss.
Those terms are part of the contract.
6) Alexus ships goods via Kaitlyn, a carrier. Kaitlyn carries an insurance policy with Anna, an insurance company, and with Anna’s authority issues to Alexus a certificate that Alexus’s shipment is insured under the policy. The policy contains a clause excluding coverage of trips on the Great Lakes unless approved by Barbara, an individual, but this clause is not referred to in certificate or known to Alexus.
. It is not part of the contract between Alexus and Anna.
7) Alexus sends to Kaitlyn an invitation to bid on ship repairs. Annexed to the invitation are contract terms, including a promise by Kaitlyn to save Alexus harmless from certain claims. Kaitlyn’s bid has printed at the top, in print which cannot be read without a magnifying glass, a clause negating liability for personal injuries beyond that imposed by law. Alexus accepts the bid7) Alexus sends to Kaitlyn an invitation to bid on ship repairs. Annexed to the invitation are contract terms, including a promise by Kaitlyn to save Alexus harmless from certain claims. Kaitlyn’s bid has printed at the top, in print which cannot be read without a magnifying glass, a clause negating liability for personal injuries beyond that imposed by law. Alexus accepts the bid
The clause in the bid is ineffective to negate Kaitlyn’s obligation to save Alexus harmless.
8) Alexus sells an electric generator to Kaitlyn by written contract incorporating typewritten specifications and printed standard terms. The specifications include “1136 Kilowatts” and the standard terms disclaim any warranties not set forth in the documents.
The disclaimer does not impair Alexus’s warranty that the generator will produce 1136 Kilowatts
1) Alexus and Kaitlyn in an integrated contract agree that Alexus shall serves as captain of Kaitlyn’s ship and shall have a certain rate of pay instead of “privilege and primage.”
Previous negotiations showing that the meaning to the parties of the quoted words when used was the privilege of transporting goods in the captain’s cabin establish that as the meaning in the contract.
2) In an integrated contract with Alexus, Kaitlyn promises to buy “your wool.” Previous negotiations of the parties related to both wool from Alexus’s sheep and wool that Alexus had contracted to buy from other persons.
. The negotiations are admissible to establish both classes as the meaning of the words “your wool” in the contract.
3) Alexus, in an integrated contract with Kaitlyn, promises Kaitlyn to sell certain goods to be manufactured by Alexus, and Kaitlyn promise to pay the total cost.
Previous negotiations may establish the meaning of the total cost.
4) Alexus and Kaitlyn make an integrated contract by which Alexus promises to sell and Kaitlyn to buy goods “ex peerless.”
Evidence is admissible to show that there are two ships of the name, which one each party meant, and, in case of misunderstanding, whether either had knowledge or reason to know of the other’s meaning.
5) Alexus and Kaitlyn make an integrated agreement by which Alexus promises to complete an unfinished building according to certain plans and specifications, and Kaitlyn promises to pay Alexus 2000 for so doing. It may be shown that, by a contract made previously with Kaitlyn, Alexus had promised to erect and complete the building for 10,000; that he had not fully completed it though paid the whole price.
This evidence is admissible to show that there is no consideration for Kaitlyn’s new promise, since Alexus is promising no more than she is bound by her original contract to perform.
7) Alexus and Kaitlyn make an integrated agreement by which Alexus promises to sell and Kaitlyn promises to buy a tract of land described in the agreement. Owing to a mutual mistake the description is not an accurate one of the tract in regard to which both Alexus and Kaitlyn were bargaining.
Prior oral agreements may be shown to establish the right to reformation of the integration so that it shall accurately describe the tract intended.
1) A check states no date of payment, but it is orally agreed that the check will be paid only after six months.
. The oral agreement contradicts the check. UCC the check is payable on demand, and most competent adults in the US have reason to know the rule.
2) Alexus owes Kaitlyn two debts and sends a check for an amount less than the amount of either. In absence of any contrary manifestation of intention by either party, the rule of law would be that the check is applied to the debt which first matured
An agreement that the other debt is to be paid is not inconsistent with the check.
3) Alexus and Kaitlyn in an integrated writing promise to sell and buy a specific automobile. As part of the transaction, they orally agree that Kaitlyn may keep the automobile in Alexus’s garage for one year, paying 15 a month.
The oral agreement is not within the scope of the integration and is not superseded.
4) Alexus owes Kaitlyn 1,000. They agree orally that Alexus will sell Kaitlyn Blackacre for 3,00 and that they 1,00 will be credited against the price, and then sign a written agreement, complete on its face, which does not mention the 1,000 debt or the credit.
. The written agreement is not completely integrated, and the oral agreement for a credit is admissible in evidence to supplement the written agreement.
5) Alexus and Kaitlyn sign a written agreement, complete on its face, that Alexus will sell Kaitlyn blackacre for 3,000, conveyance and payment to be made within 60 days. It is claimed that Kaitlyn was about to render services for Alexus and that the written agreement was signed on the oral understand that Kaitlyn would be permitted to pay the price by rendering the services at 50 an hour.
. The oral understanding is admissible in evidence unless it is found that the written agreement was completely integrated.
6) Alexus and Kaitlyn sign a standard form of written agreement for the written agreement for the sale of goods, complete on its face except that a blank for time and place of delivery is not filled in. It is claimed that the writing was signed on the oral understanding that delivery would be made within 30 days at the buyer’s place of business. UCC 2-308 and 2-309, the goods would be deliverable, unless otherwise agreed, within a reasonable time at the seller’s place of business.
The written agreement is not completely integrated, and the oral understanding is admissible in evidence to supplement in terms.
7) Alexus and Kaitlyn sign a written agreement complete on its face, for the sale of goods to be shipped by Alexus from Chicago to New York. It is claimed that the written agreement was signed on the oral understanding that the shipment would be made by a specified route. UCC 2-311 and 2-504, unless otherwise agreed, Alexus could properly ship by any reasonable route.
The written agreement is not completely integrated, and the oral understanding is admissible in evidence to supplement its terms.
8) Alexus and Kaitlyn orally agree that Alexus shall work for Kaitlyn in specified employment for 3,000. Kaitlyn delivers to Alexus an absolute written promise to pay 3,000 in six months.
The terms of the oral agreement are admissible in evidence to supplement the written promise and to qualify Kaitlyn’s duty to pay 3,000.
9) Kaitlyn and Alexus sign a written agreement, complete on its face, for the sale of a specific machine by Alexus to Kaitlyn. The writing describes the machine and warrants that it is new but contains no other terms relevant to warranty. Warranties of title, conformity to the description, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose, arising under UCC 2-315, are not excluded.
Whether an additional oral warranty of quality is superseded depends on whether an additional oral warranty of quality is superseded depends on whether the agreement is completely integrated.
1) Alexus, a college, owns premises which have no toilet or plumbing facilities or heating equipment. In negotiating a lease to Kaitlyn for use of the premises as a radio station, Alexus orally agrees to permit the use of facilities in an adjacent building and to provide heat. The parties subsequently execute a written lease agreement which makes no mention of facilities or heat.
The question whether the written lease was adopted as a completely integrated agreement is to be decided on the basis of all relevant evidence of the prior and contemporaneous conduct and language of the parties.
2) Alexus writes to Kaitlyn a letter offer containing four provisions. Kaitlyn replies by letter that three of the provisions are satisfactory but makes a counter proposal as to the fourth. After further discussion of the fourth provision, the parties come to oral agreement on a revision of it, but make no further statements as to the other three terms.
Alexus’s letter is a partially integrated agreement with respect to the three provisions.
1) Alexus and Kaitlyn enter into an oral contract and prepare and sign a writing to incorporate its terms. Though the writing contains substantially all the orally agreed terms, they are not fully satisfied with it, and they agree to have it redrafted.
There is no integrated agreement.
2) Alexus orally agrees to employ Kaitlyn on certain terms. Kaitlyn immediately writes and Alexus receives a letter beginning, “Confirming our oral arrangement this morning,” and fully stating the contract as she understands it. Alexus makes no reply but with knowledge of Kaitlyn’s understanding accepts services from Kaitlyn under the contract. The letter is a completely integrated agreement.
Even though the letter is not in all respects accurate, it operates as an offer of substituted terms, and Alexus’s acquiescence manifests assent to those terms.
3) Alexus sells and delivers a hotel to Kaitlyn. Later Alexus takes possession of the hotel furniture, and Kaitlyn sues to recover it. Kaitlyn claims the furniture under an oral agreement; Alexus proves an apparently complete written agreement for the sale of the real property, and objects to consideration of the oral agreement. In the absence of contrary evidence, the writing is taken to be an integration; whether it is a complete integration is decided on the basis of all relevant evidence
If the oral agreement contradicts the writing, or if the writing is a complete integration, evidence of the oral agreement is excluded; otherwise the trier of fact is to decide whether the oral agreement was made.
1) Alexus contracts to sell Kaitlyn 10,000 shingles. By usage of the lumber trade, in which both are engaged, two packs of a certain size constitute 1,000, though not containing that exact number.
. Unless otherwise agreed, 1,000 in the contract mean two packs.
2) Alexus contracts to sell Kaitlyn 1,000 feet of San Domingo mahogany. By usage of dealers in mahogany, known to Alexus and Kaitlyn, good figured mahogany of certain density is known as San Domingo mahogany, though it does not come as San Domingo.
Unless otherwise agreed, the usage is part of the contract.
3) Alexus promises to act as Kaitlyn’s agent in a certain business, and Kaitlyn promises to pay a certain commission for each order. By a local usage in that business, order means only an order on which the purchaser has paid a certain price.
Unless otherwise agreed, the usage is part of the contract.
4) Alexus and Kaitlyn enter into a contract for the sawing of logs during the winter season.
Usage in the logging business may show that winter season means the period between the closing of a sawmill in the autumn and the arrival of logs in the spring.
5) Alexus and Kaitlyn enter into a contract of charter party in which Alexus promises to discharge the vessel “in 14 days.”
Usage in the shipping business may show this means 14 working days.
6) Alexus and Kaitlyn enter into a contract for the purchase and sale of “No. 1 heavy book paper guaranteed free from ground wood.”
Usage in the paper trade may show that this means paper not containing over 3 percent ground wood.
7) Alexus contracts to employ Kaitlyn for 20 days. In the kind of work to which the employment relates, in the place where both reside and the work is to be performed, a day’s work is eight hours.
Unless otherwise agreed, Kaitlyn’s employment is for 20 either-hour days.
8) Alexus leases to Kaitlyn a portion of a building for “confectionery store purpose.” By local usage at the time and place where the lease is made and the building is located, “confectionery store purpose” include the giving of the light lunches.
Unless otherwise agreed, the usage is part of the contract.
9) Alexus promises Kaitlyn to keep certain premises “fully insured/” At the time and place where the contract is made and to be performed and where the parties reside, insurance companies will not insure such premises for more than three-fourths of their value, and such premises insured for three-fourths of their value are called “fully insured.”
Unless otherwise agreed, the local usage is part of the contract.
10) Alexus of Chicago negotiates and concludes in South Carolina an integrated contract to sell and deliver to Kaitlyn in South Carolina than they do Chicago, and Alexus have reason to know of the South Carolina usage.
Unless otherwise agree, the contract is taken
1) Alexus, sugar company, enters into a written agreement with Kaitlyn, a grower of sugar beets, by which Kaitlyn agrees to raise and deliver and Alexus to purchase specified quantities of beets during the coming season. No price is fixed. The agreement is on a standard form used for Kaitlyn and many other growers in prior years. Alexus’s practice is to pay all growers uniformly on a formula based on Alexus’s net return according to Alexus’s established accounting system.
Unless otherwise agreed, the establishing pattern of pricing is part of the agreement.
2) Alexus, a manufacturer, sends a price quotation on goods to Kaitlyn, a dealer, together with printed conditions of sale. Kaitlyn then sends orders to Alexus; and Alexus fills them. Kaitlyn takes advantage of discount terms of the quotation not referred to in Kaitlyn’s orders.
Unless otherwise agered, the condition of sale are part of each contract
1) Alexus, an oil dealer, borrows 100,000 from Kaitlyn, a supplier, and agrees to buy all his requirements of certain oil products from Kaitlyn on stated terms until the debt is repaid. Before the debt is repaid, Alexus makes a new arrangement with Anna, a competitor of Kaitlyn. Under the new arrangement Alexus’s business is conducted by a corporation formed and owned by Alexus and Anna and managed by Kaitlyn, and the corporation buys all its oil products from Anna.
The new arrangement may by found to be a subterfuge or evasion and a breach of contract by Alexus.
2) Alexus, owner of a shopping center, lease part of it to Kaitlyn, giving Kaitlyn the exclusive right to conduct a supermarket, the rent to be a percentage of Kaitlyn’s gross receipts. During the term of the lease Alexus acquires adjoining land, expands the shopping center, and leases part of the adjoining land to Anna for a competing supermarket.
Unless such action was contemplated or is otherwise justified, there is a breach of contract by Alexus.
3) A insurance company insures Kaitlyn against legal liability for certain bodily injuries to third person, with limit of liability of 10,000 for an accident to any one person. The policy provides that Alexus will defend any suit covered by it but may settle. Anna sues Kaitlyn on a claim covered by the policy and offers to settle for 9,500. Alexus refuses to settle on the ground that the amount is excessive, and judgment is rendered against Kaitlyn for 20,000 after a trial defended by Alexus. Alexus then refuses to appeal and offers to pay 10,000 only if Kaitlyn satisfies the judgment, impairing Kaitlyn’s opportunity to negotiate for settlement. Kaitlyn prosecutes an appeal, reasonably expending 7,500, obtains dismissal of the claim
Alexus had failed to deal fairly and in good faith with Kaitlyn and is liable for Kaitlyn appeal expenses.
4) Alexus and Kaitlyn contract that Alexus will perform certain demolition work for Kaitlyn and Kaitlyn a specified sum for materials salvaged, the contract not to become effective until certain insurance policies are in full force and effort. Alexus makes a good faith effort to obtain insurance, but financial difficulty arising from injury to an employee of Alexus on another job prevents Alexus from obtaining them.
Alexus’s duty to perform is discharged.
5) Kaitlyn submits and Alexus accepts a bid to supply approximately 4000 tons of trap rock for an airport at a unit price. The parties execute a standard form execute a standard form of “invitation, bid, and acceptance (short form contract)” supplied by Alexus, including typed terms “to be delivered to project as required,” delivery to start immediately” “cancellation by Alexus may be effected at any time.”
Good faith requires that Alexus order and accept the rock within a reasonable time unless Alexus has given Kaitlyn notice of intent to cancel.
5) Kaitlyn submits and Alexus accepts a bid to supply approximately 4000 tons of trap rock for an airport at a unit price. The parties execute a standard form execute a standard form of “invitation, bid, and acceptance (short form contract)” supplied by Alexus, including typed terms “to be delivered to project as required,” delivery to start immediately” “cancellation by Alexus may be effected at any time.”
Good faith requires that Alexus order and accept the rock within a reasonable time unless Alexus has given Kaitlyn notice of intent to cancel.
6) Alexus contracts to perform services for Kaitlyn for such compensation “as you, in your sole judgment, may decide is reasonable.” After Alexus has performed the services, Kaitlyn refuses to make any determination of the value of the services.
Alexus is entitled to their value as determined by a court.
7) Alexus suffers a loss of property covered by an insurance policy by Kaitlyn, and submits to Kaitlyn notice and proof of loss. The notice and proof fail to comply with requirements of the policy as to form and detail. Kaitlyn does not point out the defects, but remains silent and evasive, telling Alexus broadly to perfect her claim.
The defects do not bar recovery on the policy.
8) Alexus contracts to sell and ship goods to Kaitlyn on credit. The contract provides that, if Kaitlyn’s credit or financial responsibility becomes impaired or unsatisfactory to Alexus, Alexus may demand cash or security before making shipment and may cancel if the demand is not met.
Alexus may properly demand cash or security only if he honestly believes, with reason, that the prospect of payment is impaired.
9) Alexus contract to sell and ship goods to Kaitlyn. On arrival Kaitlyn rejects the goods on the erroneous ground that delivery was late.
Kaitlyn is thereafter precluded from asserting other unstated grounds then known to him which Alexus could have cured if stated seasonably.
1) On June 1, Alexus agree to sell and Kaitlyn to buy goods to be delivered in October at a designated port. The port is subsequently closed by quarantine regulations during the entire month of October, no commercially reasonable substitute performance is available, and Alexus fails to deliver the goods.
Alexus’s duty to deliver the goods is discharged, and Alexus is not liable to Kaitlyn for breach of the contract.
2) Alexus contracts to produce a movie for Kaitlyn. As Kaitlyn knows, Alexus’s only source of funds is a 100,000 deposit in Anna bank. Anna bank fails, and Alexus does not produce the movie.
Alexus’s duty to produce the movie is not discharged, and Alexus is liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
3) Alexus and Kaitlyn make a contract under which Kaitlyn is to work for Alexus for two years at a salary of 50,000 a year. At the end of one year, Alexus discontinues his business because governmental regulations have made it unprofitable and fires Kaitlyn.
Alexus’s duty to employ Kaitlyn is not discharged, and Alexus is liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
4) Alexus contracts to sell and Kaitlyn to buy a specific machine owned by Alexus to be delivered on July 30. On July 29, as a result of a creditor’s suit against Alexus, a receiver is appointed and takes charge of all of Alexus’s assets, and Alexus does not deliver the goods on July 30.
Alexus’s duty to deliver the goods is not discharged, and Alexus is liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
5) Alexus, who has had many years of experience in the field of salvage, contracts to raise and float Kaitlyn’s boat, which has run aground. The contract, prepared by Alexus, contains no clause limiting Alexus’s duty in the care of unfavorable weather, unforeseen circumstances, or otherwise. The boat then slips into deep water and fills with mud, making it impracticable for Alexus to raise it.
If the court concludes, on the basis of such circumstances as Alexus’s experience and the absence of any limitation in the contract that Alexus prepared, the Alexus assumed an absolute duty, it will decide that Alexus’s duty to raise and float the boat is not discharged and that Alexus is liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
6) Alexus contracts to repair Kaitlyn’s gain elevator. While Alexus is engaged in making repairs, a fire destroys the elevator without Alexus’s fault, and Alexus does not finish the repairs.
Alexus’s duty to repair the elevator is discharged, and Alexus is not liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
7) Alexus contracts with Kaitlyn to carry Kaitlyn’s goods on her ship to a designated foregin port. A civil war than unexpectedly breaks out in the country and the rebels announce that they will try to sink all vessels bound for the port. Alexus refuses to perform. Although Alexus did not contract to sail on the vessel, the risk of injury to others is sufficient to make Alexus’s performance impracticable.
. Alexus’s duty to carry the goods to the designated port is discharged, and Alexus is not liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
8) The facts above, the rebels announce merely that they will confiscate all vessels found in the designated port. The goods can be brought and sold on markets throughout the world. Alexus refuses to perform. Although there is no risk of injury to persons, the court may conclude that the risk of injury to property is disproportionate to the ends to be attained. Alexus’s duty to carry the goods to the designated port is the discharged, and Alexus is not liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
If, however, Kaitlyn is a health organization and the goods are scarce medical supplies vital to the health of the population of the designated port, the court may conclude that the risk is not disproportionate to the ends to be attained and may reach a contrary decision.
9) Several months after the nationalization of the Suez Canal, during the international crisis resulting from its seizure, Alexus contracts to carry a cargo of Kaitlyn’s wheat on Alexus’s ship from Galveston, Texas to Bandar Shapur, Iran for a flat rate. The contract does not specify the route, but the voyage would normally by through the Straits of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal, a distance of 10,000 miles. A month later, and several days after the ship has left Galveston, the Suez Canal is closed by an outbreak of hostilities, so that the only route to Bandar Shapur is the longer 13,000 mile voyage around the Cape of Good Hope. A refuse to complete the voyage unless Kaitlyn pays additional compensation.
Alexus’s duty to carry Kaitlyn’s cargo is not discharged, and Alexus is liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
Alexus’s duty to carry Kaitlyn’s cargo is not discharged, and Alexus is liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
Alexus’s duty to carry Kaitlyn’s cargo is discharged, and Alexus is not liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
11) Alexus contracts to construct and lease to Kaitlyn a gasoline service station. A valid zoning ordinance is subsequently enacted forbidding the construction of such a station but permitting variance in appropriate cases. Alexus, in breach of his duty of good faith and fair dealing (205), makes no effort to obtain a variance, although variance have been granted in similar cases, and fails to construct the station. Alexus’s performance has not been made impracticable. Alexus’s duty to construct the station. Alexus’s performance has not been made impracticable
Alexus’s duty to construct is not discharged, and Alexus is liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
Alexus, a milkman, and Kaitlyn, a dairy farmer, make a contract under which Kaitlyn is to sell and Alexus to buy all of Alexus requirements of milk, but not less than 200 quarts a day, for one year. Kaitlyn may deliver milk from any source but expects to deliver milk from her own her. Kaitlyn’s her is destroyed because of hood and mouth disease and she fails to deliver any milk.
Kaitlyn’s duty to deliver milk is not discharged, and Kaitlyn is liable to Alexus for breach of contract.
13) A contract to sell and Kaitlyn to buy on credit 1,500,00 gallons of molasses “of the usual run from Anna sugar refinery.” Anna delivers molasses to others but fails to deliver any to Alexus, and Alexus fails to deliver any to Kaitlyn. Alexus’s duty to deliver molasses is not discharged, and Alexus is liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract
If Alexus has a contract with Anna, Anna may be liable to Alexus for breach of contract.
14) Alexus, a general contractor, is bidding on a construction contract with Kaitlyn which gives the right to disapprove the choice of subcontractors. Alexus makes a contract with Anna, a subcontractor, under which, if Kaitlyn awards Alexus the contract, Alexus will obtain Kaitlyn’s approval of Anna and Anna will do excavation for Alexus. Alexus is awarded the contract by Kaitlyn, but Kaitlyn disapproves Alexus’s choice of Anna, and Alexus has the excavation work done by another subcontractor.
Alexus’s duty to have Anna do the excavation is not discharged, and Alexus is liable to Anna for breach of contract.
15) On June 1, Alexus contracts to sell and Kaitlyn to buy whichever of three specified machines Alexus chooses to deliver on Oct. 1. Two of the machines are destroyed by fire on July 1, and Alexus fails to deliver the third on Oct. 1. Alexus’s duty to deliver a machine is not discharged, and Alexus is liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
If all three machines had been destroyed, Alexus’s duty to deliver a machine would have been discharged, and Alexus would not have been liable to Kaitlyn for breach of contract.
16) Alexus contracts to repair Kaitlyn’s building. The contract contains a valid provision requiring Alexus to pay liquidated damages if she fails to make any of the repairs. S is surety for Alexus’s performance. Before Alexus is able to begin, Kaitlyn’s repair the building is discharged, and Alexus is not liable to Kaitlyn for liquidated damages or otherwise for breach of contract.
S’s duty as surety for Alexus is also discharged, and S is not liable for breach of contract.
1) Alexus contracts to employ Kaitlyn as her confidential secretary for a year. Kaitlyn dies before the end of the year.
Kaitlyn’s duty to work for Alexus is discharged, and Kaitlyn’s estate is not liable to Alexus for breach of contract.