1. Case Scenarios: Grocery, Inc. LAW/421

2. Grocery, Inc. UCC  Grocery, Inc. is a retail grocery store based in Any State, U.S.A. and has stores located throughout the United States. In this case scenario: Does Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) apply to the contracts between Grocery, Inc. and its vendors?  Yes, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applies to the contracts between Grocery, Inc. and its vendors. Do common law contracts apply?  Yes, common law contracts apply to each individual location. Compare and contrast common law contracts and UCC Article 2 contracts.  Common law applies to contracts originated and/or performed within a single jurisdiction or state.

3. Grocery, Inc. Renovations  Grocery, Inc. Contracted with Company A to renovate the store on Main Street in My Town, U.S.A. In this scenario: Grocery, Inc. contracted with company A. Grocery. Inc. was not aware of the subcontract. Company A is responsible for the poor workmanship of Company B. Grocery, Inc. Wins.

4. Grocery, Inc. (Jeff)  Jeff purchased a car from Steve at the local used car lot. Steve did not ask Jeff his age. When Jeff lost his job, he retuned the car, asked to cancel his contract, and requested a refund. In this scenario: The controlling factor here is whether or not Jeff had the legal ability to enter into a contract with Steve. If, in this jurisdiction, Jeff did not have the legal ability to enter into a sales contract, then the contract is voided because of impossibility.

5. Gap Filling Rule (Cereal, Inc.)  Grocery, Inc. has written a contract with Cereal, Inc. to purchase 20 cases of cereal per month. After a flood, Cereal, Inc. suffers severe water damage and they do not have enough cereal to fulfill the contract. In this scenario:

6. Gap Filling Rule (Cereal, Inc.) Grocery, Inc. only has the right to cover by contracting elsewhere for the remaining cases on the contract. Grocery, Inc must fulfill the part of the contract that Cereal, Inc. cannot bring to market.

7. Harry and Tom Breach of Contract  Tom told Harry that he would offer his trains only to Harry when he retired. Tom sold his trains to David. In this scenario: Three items must be established to call upon promissory estoppel  When a person makes a false statement to another and the listener relies on what was told to him/her in good faith and to his/her disadvantage.  A Promisor  The Promisee

8. Harry and Tom Breach of Contract  Harry Wins in This Scenario Because:  Facts for Harry  Relied on the statement that Harry told him  Built a 2000 square ft room for trains in which he had a financial loss  Facts for Tom  Tom told Harry he was going to be the only one he sold the trains to  Tom breach the contract when he sold the trains to another friend

9. Grocery, Inc. (Jason)  Jason shipped a truckload of peaches from his orchard to Grocery, Inc. using an independent trucker. In route, the truck broke down and the shipment was delayed three days. The peaches were spoiled when they arrived. The terms of the contract were F.O.B   Who bears the risk? Explain your answer.

10. Supplier Inc. (Bill)  Supplier Inc. sued Grocery Inc. for breach of contract for not placing order worth $550. In this case Grocery Inc. is arguing that Bill was not able to agree to the terms. Supplier Inc. stating that there was an Oral agreement to the terms and signing of standard contract  Is there a contract?  What are the terms of the contract?  Oral testimony at trial

11. References  Melvin, S. (2011). The legal envorinment of business: A managerial approach: Theory to practice. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.  University of Phoenix. (unk). Case Scenarios: Grocery, Inc. unk: University of phoenix.  Contracts fob law and legal definition. (July, 2013 26). Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/contracts-fob/