Decision Was in Favor of the Plaintiff, Term Paper

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 1069 words ( 4 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 2

Page 1 of 4

decision was in favor of the plaintiff, McCalif Grower Supplies, Inc. (McCalif). The court ordered the defendant, Wilbur Reed (Reed) to pay McCalif's invoice for the poinsettas. However, Reed appealed, and won the repeal. The court ordered a reverse and remand for damages made in the initial counterclaim. The appellate decision was made based on consequential damages due to seller's breach related to perfect tender requiring that, "the seller deliver goods in conformity with the terms of the contract," (text p. 513). The perfect tender rule protects the buyer, which is why the appellate court made its decision to reverse and remand. According to the perfect tender rule, "if goods or tender fail in any respect to conform to the contract, the buyer/lessee has the right to accept the goods, reject the entire shipment, or accept part and reject part," (text p. 513).

In this case, the buyer, Reed, sued for non-delivery or repudiation (Mccalif Grower Supplies Inc. v. Reed, 1995). The court focused on the buyer's right to non-delivery and states, "The record demonstrates that Reed accepted a portion of the commercial units of poinsettias and rejected the rest. The record further demonstrates, without contradiction, that Reed notified McCalif within 24 hours," (Mccalif Grower Supplies Inc. v. Reed).

Moreover, the courts point to issues regarding warranty of the item. "Warranty when thing cannot be examined by buyer. One who sells or agrees to sell merchandise inaccessible to the examination of the buyer thereby warrants that it is sound and merchantable," (Mccalif Grower Supplies Inc. v. Reed). The botched delivery was deemed to be incidental damages. Therefore, it did not matter that Reed acquired compensation from Delta the courier; the breach between the seller and buyer still did take place, and that is the issue the courts were focusing on in when making the ultimate decision in Mccalif Grower Supplies Inc. v. Reed.

Stuck Writing Your "Decision Was in Favor of the Plaintiff," Term Paper?

View All Our Example Decision Was in Favor of the Plaintiff, Term Paper

Have A Custom Example Essay Written



Reference

Mccalif Grower Supplies Inc. v. Reed (1995). Retrieved online: http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19950725_0000146.MT.htm/qx

Chapter 24, Question 3

The Inn Between v Remanco Metropolitan case relates to two legal issues, that of nonconforming goods and that of the system maintenance agreement/contract for nonreturn of the system. UCC Sections 2-601 and 2A-519 "allow the buyer or lessee to reject the goods," and moreover, the buyer has the right to "obtain cover or cancel the contract," (text p. 536). The UCC also covers buyers wishing to revoke acceptance of nonconforming goods, in sections 2-608 and 2A-517. The buyer can also sue for damages under UCC Sections 2-607, 2-714, and 2A-519, so long as the buyer gave the seller reasonable notice.

The courts ruled firmly in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $8,405, representing the initial cost of the computer system only. The courts also dismissed the counterclaims made by Remanco, related to the unpaid maintenance and non-return of the system. "The Court concludes that as the Remanco equipment was not in good operating condition, Remanco did not perform its obligations under the Agreement. Thus, Remanco cannot be paid for non-performance," (Inn Between v Remanco). However, the courts do order that the system be returned to Remanco as part of the deal.

The ruling addresses Remanco's counterclaim that its breach of warranty only….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Decision Was In Favor Of The Plaintiff " (2012, November 12) Retrieved June 10, 2025, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/decision-favor-plaintiff-107330
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example