Contemporary Business Law Study Set 1
Quiz 18 :
Remedies for Breach of Sales and Lease Contracts
In this case, the court decision went in the favour of Mr H because, the seeds were not appropriate as it should be. The quality was not meeting the terms and conditions of the business. Mr H required a standard which was fallacious, as verified by sample tests done. Mr C breached the agreement by exporting non-conforming goods that were not meeting with the terms of contract.
In this case, the judgement went in the favour of Ms G and against the GMAC for breaching the terms and conditions of delivery and not as per the required standards. As per the terms of delivery, the goods should be delivered as it is required in state and standard. But GMAC breached the terms of delivery. Apart from this GMAC also bound Ms G for revoking the goods. Thus, Ms G is bound by law from revoking the sale.
Case facts: M is a material and Equipment Company ME is the dealer of the construction company. He entered into a sales agreement with JM for the sale of bulldozer. The agreement contains that ME needs to deliver the bulldozer to JM's residency for this JM paid to ME with a check, before the delivery JM stopped the payment of a check. After that ME started negotiating to abide by the sales agreement during this period he upkeep the machinery but the negotiations are not favorable. Afterwards he tried for another buyer after fourteen months the sale has taken place, but the price of the bulldozer was less than the contract price it was resold at low price then the contract price. ME sued against JM to recover the difference amount between the resold and contract price and cost upkeep of the machinery. Here revocation of acceptance can be identified JM revoke the acceptance and stopped the payment of a check. The Seller has the right to revoke the acceptance if the goods are non-confirming. But here in this case after the agreement is revoked the seller upkeep the machinery and negotiated with the buyer after reselling the machinery it was sold at low price. Here the ME has the right to recover the cost of the upkeep of the machine as per the following condition In certain cases, UCC provides that the seller may sue the buyer to recover the purchase price or rent, if the buyer breaches the contract after the goods are identified and ready for the sale and the seller cannot resell them. Here in this case ME negotiated with JM regarding the sales agreement after so many months the resale value has decreased due to the time taken in the negotiation process. On the other hand the machinery which is ready for delivery was upkeep for fourteen months so the cost of upkeep the machinery was due to the breach of contract by JM after the machinery was ready for delivery. Therefore, from the above statements it is clear that the case will be won by ME. He can recover the difference amount between the resold and contract price and cost upkeep of the machinery.