General instructions Please answer each question as thoroughly, but concisely, a
ID: 433769 • Letter: G
Question
General instructions
Please answer each question as thoroughly, but concisely, as you can, making reference
as much as possible to Business Law concepts
? Multiple Possibilities. Some questions will have more than one possible outcome; in such cases you should describe each possible outcome and the factor(s) that would determine which possible outcome would occur.
? Missing Information. If there is any information that is missing that you believe is relevant to your analysis or conclusion, identify what that missing information is, and how it would affect your analysis or conclusion.
? The questions generally should require no more than 4 to 5 sentences or so for a
response.
Scenario 1
Under the Uniform Commercial Code, if a buyer receives goods that are “Nonconforming” the buyer has a “reasonable time” to reject those goods, otherwise the buyer is treated as having accepted the goods even though they are nonconforming. The two general ways that goods are non-conforming are if the seller delivers (1) defective goods or (2) incorrect goods (goods different from those ordered). Thus, if the buyer fails to reject the goods (i.e., not accept them) within a reasonable time, the buyer has lost its right to return the goods and must pay for those goods despite the fact they are non-conforming.
Here are some cases where a court determined whether or not a buyer had rejected
nonconforming goods within a reasonable time:
1. Grocery store had not rejected within a reasonable time when it rejected a truckload of bananas 3 days after they had arrived. The buyer had noticed, upon arrival, that the bananas were overly brown.
2. Ski shop had rejected within a reasonable time when it rejected a shipment of 200 snowboards 15 days after arrival after noticing (5 days after arrival) that the top surface of all of the snowboards contained discoloration).
3. Grocery store had rejected within a reasonable time when it rejected a shipment of 144 boxes of energy bars 7 days after arrival because it noticed the day that they arrived that all of them were the incorrect flavors.
Question 1.
In 4 to 5 sentences explain in general how a court would use the precedent cases above in future disputes over the interpretation of a “reasonable time” to reject goods.
Questions 2 to 5.
For each of the scenarios, the question for the court is whether or not the rejection of the non-conforming goods was made within a reasonable time. Explain how you think that the case might turn out and how the precedent would support that outcome. If you think that either outcome is possible, explain how a court would use precedent to support each of those outcomes. In most cases you should be able to give good, complete responses with no more than 4 or 5 sentences to each scenario. Assume that the judges will follow precedent (won’t make a decision that contradicts the decided cases). Take all the facts presented here as correct. For the precedent cases, you know only what is stated above.
You do not know exactly which aspect(s) of the facts was most important to the judge in deciding if the rejection was done within a reasonable time or not.
Question 2.
A ski shop noticed the day of delivery that the 120 pairs of boots ordered were the wrong models. It rejected the boots 8 days after delivery.
Question 3.
A grocery store noticed the day of delivery that the 100 roses received were red (they were supposed to be white) and rejected them 4 days after delivery.
Question 4.
A shop in Sun Valley Idaho, which was in the path of totality for the August 21, 2017 solar eclipse, ordered 200 T shirts that were delivered on July 31, 2017. Two days later, on August 2, 2017, the store realized that the word “Solar” on the shirts was incorrectly spelled as “Soler.” The shop rejected them on August 8, 2018, 8 days after arrival.
Question 5.
A roofing contractor had ordered asphalt roofing shingles for a residential customer’s roofing project. The contractor received the shingles on June 1, noticed that they were the wrong color on June 2, and rejected them just over a month later on July 3.
Scenario 2.
Mark lives in Memphis, Tennessee. Memphis is located very close to both Mississippi and Arkansas. For questions 6-10, answer in a few sentences at most.
Question 6.
Mark was visiting the town of Little Rock, Arkansas and was involved in a 2 car accident. The other driver lives in Little Rock. If Mark were to sue the other driver, which state or states would have personal jurisdiction over the other driver and why?
Question 7.
Mark was visiting the town of Little Rock, Arkansas and was involved in a 2 car accident. The other driver lives in Little Rock. If the other driver were to sue Mark, which state or states would have personal jurisdiction over Mark and why?
Question 8.
Mark was visiting the town of Little Rock, Arkansas and was involved in a 2 car accident. The other driver lives in Atlanta Georgia. If Mark were to sue the other driver, which state or states would have personal jurisdiction over the other driver and why?
Question 9
Mark was visiting the town of Little Rock, Arkansas and was involved in a 2 car accident. The other driver lives in Little Rock. Which state or states could exercise personal jurisdiction over Mark in a criminal case?
Question 10
Assume that Mark starts a mobile dog grooming business and purchases a van for this purpose. How will it be determined if a state can exercise jurisdiction over the dog grooming business if that business is named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit related to the business.
Explanation / Answer
Question 1.
In 4 to 5 sentences explain in general how a court would use the precedent cases above in future disputes over the interpretation of a “reasonable time” to reject goods.
Reasonable time varies with industry and with goods. For e.g. perishable goods should be rejected as soon as possible usually within 24 hrs. But goods like chocolates with a long expiry date can take some more days
The reasonable time for rejection in case of Seasonal goods (ski boards used during winter) can be comparatively longer. This can be even in weeks
Durable goods can be rejected even after a slight delay.
Question 2.
A ski shop noticed the day of delivery that the 120 pairs of boots ordered were the wrong models. It rejected the boots 8 days after delivery.
The reasonable time for rejection in case of Seasonal goods like winter boots can be comparatively longer. This can be even in weeks. Taking Example 2 –ski boards as precedent , we find that that goods can be rejected even after days because after returning even after days, the supplier can repair them and re-sell them.
Question 3.
A grocery store noticed the day of delivery that the 100 roses received were red (they were supposed to be white) and rejected them 4 days after delivery.
From example 1 (bananas) as precedent, Perishable goods should be rejected as soon as possible because
Here the goods are incorrect. Roses are perishable goods. Roses are prone to decay with 24-48 hrs after delivery. So in this case the buyer has taken 4 days to reject. Hence the buyer has not rejected within a reasonable time
Question 4.
A shop in Sun Valley Idaho, which was in the path of totality for the August 21, 2017 solar eclipse, ordered 200 T shirts that were delivered on July 31, 2017. Two days later, on August 2, 2017, the store realized that the word “Solar” on the shirts was incorrectly spelled as “Soler.” The shop rejected them on August 8, 2018, 8 days after arrival.
Here the goods are defective.
T-shirts are not perishable goods. Hence the reasonable time for rejection can be longer .taking precedent from example 2(snow board). Even if the product is rejected after 8 days, the supplier can take back the t-shirts and he can sell it to some other buyer, who can accept the spelling mistake, for the solar eclipse on August,31
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.