1. New furniture was delivered to a customer and when it arrived it was badly damaged. The customer contacted the store about the damage and the store sent a representative to inspect the furniture. The representative stated that the furniture could be repaired and restored. The customer, upon hearing this, did not want the repairs and wanted her money back. The store refused, claiming that she has accepted the goods and was required to permit the store to fix the defects. Who prevails in this case? From an ethical perspective what do you think should be done?
2. A seller delivered good to a dock in New Orleans for shipment to a buyer in Seattle. As the goods were being loaded on the ship, a fire broke out and destroyed all of the goods on the dock. Did the delivery to the dock alone, but before loading on the ship, constitute delivery to the common carrier and thus effect shift in risk of loss and title?
3. Are there limits to the right to cure? Does a breaching party have the right to cure the breach, or can the non-breaching party proceed directly to a damage claim?
4. You are leasing a car and after 18 months the car is not running well. You take the car the the dealership and are told that several valves in the engine are bent due to misuse by you. You refuse to pay the repair bill of $2500, claiming it is covered under the warranty. The dealership stated that there was a misuse which constituted a waiver of the warranties. Who is correct in this situation? Does possible misuse constitute a waiver of implied warranties?
1. How does CARFAX make money?
2. Look for CARFAX competitors.
3. Compare the CARFAX web site to competitor's web sites.
4. Do similar services exist for other types of products?
5. How do web sites like CARFAX reduce litigation? Be specific.
6. What if the information a person gets from CARFAX is inaccurate, e.g., what if CARFAX information suggests no problems with a car title, and then there are problems? Are they responsible for any damages or costs?
Aristotle Mythos is having a “mid-life crisis,” in large part because he is 50 years old, and he realizes that most people do not live to be 100. In an attempt to conquer his depression, and to prove that he is equivalent to a 20-year-old (at least in spirit,) Mythos plans to climb Mount Zeus, the highest peak in his ancestor’s homeland of Greconia.
In preparation for his climb, Mythos patronizes the local “outdoors” shop, Athena’s Garden, and asks to speak with a trained sales associate. Mythos specifies that he will be climbing Mount Zeus, and that he will need a tent and sleeping bag to survive the wind and elements on two nights during his ascent and descent. The associate selects a tent and sleeping bag from a wide variety of possibilities, and Mythos leaves the store a “happy camper.”
Mythos begins his climb the following day, and successfully reaches his check point, halfway to Zeus’ peak, before nightfall. He prepares his campsite, and looks forward to some much-needed rest. Unfortunately, he has a fitful night, shivering in his sleeping bag below a partially-collapsed tent, with the wind and the cold “getting the best of” Mythos and his camping gear.
In the daylight of the following morning, Mythos fully awakens to realize that the toes on both of his feet have turned a sickening shade of blue-purple, and he realizes with great disappointment that he will not be able to fulfill his dream of climbing Mount Zeus. Further, upon closer examination of his tent and sleeping bag, both are trademark-stamped “The Young Mythologist,” gear intended for backyard camping by children.
As a result of his misfortune, Mythos must have four toes (two toes on each foot) amputated, and he incurs medical expenses of $58,000 for treatment and rehabilitation. Mythos’ doctor has rated him with 20% permanent partial disability as a result of his toe amputations.
1. Is Athena’s Garden legally responsible for Mythos’ medical expenses and partial disability?
2. If so, on what theory?
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.Business Law
In this case, the store prevails. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any product that has been purchased in a store is required to meet certain standards (Herron, Kubasek, Barkacs, Browne & Dhooge, 2015). For example, the product must be of satisfactory quality, fit its intended purposes, and be as described. Regarding this case, the new furniture did not satisfy these standards as stipulated under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Herron et al., 2015). For instance, the new furniture was damaged, and even if repaired, it cannot be restored to the original form. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), sellers should transfer and deliver goods that meet the stipulated standards (Herron et al., 2015). The perfect tender rule is also applicable because the products are non-conforming and not as ordered initially.
From an ethical perspective, I think that the customer and the store should come into a consensus. If the new furniture can be repaired and restored, the customer should accept the offer. Herron et al. (2015) explained that under the UCC section 2(613), if goods are damaged in the course of a contract and the parties can form a performance. Also, section 2(508) of UCC stipulates that sellers have a right to fix and cure problems associated with non-conforming goods (Herron et al., 2015). The store can repair and restore the new furniture, while the customer can accept the product....
By purchasing this solution you'll be able to access the following files:
Solution1.docx, Solution2.docx and Solution3.docx.