QuestionQuestion

Transcribed TextTranscribed Text

from Thamas Bytes Designs and masufactures soffware for home compsiter He conducts his besinets his home and sells primarily to friends and former besiness celleagues. On June 1, Thorazs decided to market his seftware to the general public. He sent the following form flyer to local retailers: "Local software designer and manofacturer of cempoter games desires to sell to all P.C. outlets. All orders priced at cost ples 20% (appreximetely $50 per item) advance orders required." On June 15, Compmania, a small personal computer sent Thomas the following order on their stationary, Desire to purchase 20 "Z01D0" games for textos consistent with June 1, letter. 10 to be delivered June 25. 10 to be delivered June 30. Full payment on final delivery. All "Z01D6" gemes on CD-ROM for Microfilm 96 caly" On June 18, Thomas E-Mailed Comproania and requested that wire $200 to LASERLAB, INC., (the CD manufacturer, to pay off the credit extended to Thomas). Compmania's representative phoned back that day and agreed to those ferms. On June 20. Thomas overnight mailed an acknowledgment but in a follow-ep added that "mediators should be used for disputes.' Oa June 21, all electrical power was interrupted for two days in the state where Thomas designed and manufactured said games, when a dam on a nearby river burst due to floodwaters Due to said interruption of electrical power, Thomas fell behind in his orders but did catch up until hiring a temporary worker for $200.00 He demanded that Compenania reimburse him for the temporary worker. They reluctantly agreed because they had already advertised the "Z01D0" game at the local 200 and children's museum. Thomas and the assistant completed and delivered the first 10 games on time. All were able to work on Microfile 3.2 and Microfilm 96. The temporary worker quit the next week, and the remaining garnes were delivered two days late on July 2 Compmania refused to take delivery or pay for the games because they said delivery was delayed. However, Compmania really could not sell the games because "Z01D0" ran poorly on Microfila 3.2. Thomas spent $200 trying to sell the games elsewhere and sold 10 games for $500. His total costs were $1,200, ($40 x 20 per game), $200 for the assistant and $200 for the resale. Thomas sued Comprania in the local district court for breach of contract. Compmania claimed that (1) that the contract was improperly before the court; (2) that they were under no obligation to pay because of the dual operating platform Microfilm 3.2 and Microfilm 96; (3) tefusal of the July 2 delivery was proper due to lateness; and (4). Compmania was not obligated to pay the $200 for the assistant. * Discuss all the issues arising in Thomas suft against Compania * Discuss all the issues in Compmania Depense *what Damages, may Thomas Recieve with appropriate reasons? On April 10, 1994, MORE POWER TO YOU CORP., (hereinafter referred to as MPTY), negotiated with POWER AlD CORPORATION to construct a coal-fired electric generating facility near Palmdale, California. Relying on positive statements by POWER AID'S President, the Board of Directors of MTPY entered a subcontract agreement with FEO Corporation to purchase $10,000,000 of structural steel and other materials. On May 8, 1994, all of the steel was delivered by FEO and accepted by MPTY. On May 10, 1994, MPTY was informed that representatives of POWER AID CORPORATION had inspected the structural steel and found it unsuitable for this project. Meanwhile on May 8, 1994, MPTY had informed FEO that under the agreement it was permitted to retain 10% of the purchase price until the project was completed When FEO's C.F.O. objected, MPTY's legal representatives highlighted and faxed the 10% retainage agreement to FEO. The agreement made the following provision which authorized MPTY to withliold as retainage 10% of the purchase price for the materials supplied by FEO until POWER AID made its final acceptance. On May 12, 1994, FEO sent & letter to MPTY proposing the following resolution to the retainage problem: 90% of monthly invoice for materials delivered during that month would be due in 30 days. The remaining 10% could be retained for a period not to exceed 90 days." MPTY, Inc. did not formally respond to this letter, but its chief legal office telephonically promised to look into the matter. Also, MPTY told FEO about the problem with the structural steel. On May 14, 1994, FEO sent privately retained and licensed engineers to inspect the structucal steel. After for a the purpose intended. FEO then faxed the results to MPTY on May 16, 1994 and demanded full lengthy inspection, the engineers indicated that in their opinion the steol was structurally sound and fit payment of the $10,600,000. Meanwhile, MPTY was informed by POWER AID CORP., that due to the proposed use of inadequate structural steel, they had chosen not to grant the job to MPTY but signed a contract with another firm. MPTY then returaed the structural steel to FEO and submitted a $50,000 bill for transportation costs. List any and all possible contracts, their formation and/or breach, and rights and defenses of MPTY, FEO and POWER AID CORPORATION,

Solution PreviewSolution Preview

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.

Discussion 1
Thomas Byers Designs has not legal right to pursue Compania, because on June 20, Thomas overnight mailed an acknowledgement but in a follow-up add, “Mediators should be used for disputes”. In addition, in an event that was not foreseeable to the parties at the time a contract was formed makes performance of the contract impossible, such performance is excused. In the absence of facts that specifically suggest the contrary, destruction of the subject matter of a contract is usually held to have been unforeseeable by the parties at the time of contracting (See Marks v. Cowdin, 123 N.E. 139 (1919).
Thomas Byers Designs must understand the Statutes of Fraud, which requires a contract for the sale of goods with a price of $500 or more to be in writing, but it does not apply to a contract for services, even if goods are to be provided by the person for Compania in a timely manner when performing the services. Usually, a promise is unenforceable unless it is supported by consideration. Consideration is...
$50.00 for this solution

PayPal, G Pay, ApplePay, Amazon Pay, and all major credit cards accepted.

Get College Homework Help.

Are you sure you don't want to upload any files?

Fast tutor response requires as much info as possible.

Decision:
Upload a file
Continue without uploading

SUBMIT YOUR HOMEWORK
We couldn't find that subject.
Please select the best match from the list below.

We'll send you an email right away. If it's not in your inbox, check your spam folder.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Live Chats