Business Law Spring 2012
1. Dr. Jack would get paid by Mrs. Lee. An agency relationship exists where Mrs. Lee is the principal, Pete the gardener is the agent, and Dr. Jack is the 3rd party. Dr. Jack completed the work on Mrs. Lee’s trees with the belief that Pete had the authority to contract on behalf of Mrs. Lee as her gardener. Mrs. Lee would argue that she had advised Pete that she wanted to interview Dr. Jack prior to work being completed but Pete did not disclose this to Dr. Jack. Additionally, there is an apparent authority that Pete’s contract with Dr. Jack is valid. Pete being a gardener that has some knowledge of plants and caring for them would lead the court to estop the principal from trying to deny any existence of the agent’s authority. Pete is within his scope of work which entitles him to indemnification from the principal. Therefore, Mrs. Lee would have to pay Dr. Jack for the work that he completed on her trees. 2. a. Rhonda would have nothing to legally argue. While Safetoday Grocery is a merchant, there was no sale of good. Rhonda had no intention of paying for the product and applied the product without paying. Safetoday Grocery, Alex Super Glue, and La Salon Belle hold no liability for Rhonda mistaking the super glue for the chap stick that caused her to glue her lips together. b. Under UCC law, Alex SGC can sue LSB under Implied Warranty of Merchantability. Since the order placed by Alex SGC was for sticks of colored pearl and silver but arrived white and blue, they did not conform to the contract description of the good. Title had transferred from LSB to Alex SGC when identification and delivery were completed. Alex SGC didn’t reject any portion of the shipment at delivery, therefore implied warranty is their only recourse. LSB’s defense against Alex SGC’s suit would be that the buyer did not fulfill both of the buyer’s obligations. While the goods were paid according...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document