Case Analysis of Chap 9 Case 10 (Contemporary Canadian Business Law) Essay Example
Term Paper for CMLW 2201
Chapter 9 - Case 10
A minor named Alice entered into a contract with Silver Flatware Ltd. for purchasing silverware on a long-term credit contract. The goods was delivered but the payment was not yet been fully made by Alice. Before she attain the age of majority, Alice repudiated the contract and refused to return the silverware. The company demanded a return of the silverware and refused to refund. The company sued Alice for the balance of purchase price.
The legal issues in this case are whether Alice has the legal capacity to the contract and whether Alice has the right to repudiate the contract. If the second question is answered affirmative, what the effect of repudiation will occur in this case? Should Alice return the silverware and should she be liable to the lost of teaspoons? Finally, should the Silver Flatware Ltd. Refund the money had been paid by Alice?
The plaintiff’s argument would be that the defendant must return the goods if she wants to repudiate the contract. The lost of teaspoons should be counted as damage to the goods and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the loss by charging compensation from the defendant.
The defendant’s argument would be that she has the right to repudiate the contract since she was a minor while entering into the contract and she repudiated the contract before her attaining of the age of majority. The defendant has the option to repudiate the contract because the contract has not been fully performed and it was signed for purchasing non-necessary goods. The defendant was entitled to a return of the payment as she was a minor at the time she entered into the contract. The defendant was not liable to the lost of teaspoons since it was not a direct result of the minor’s deliberate act and it was not recoverable by the merchant.
In my opinion, the probable decision of the court would be that the defendant must return the goods and the plaintiff must refund all the monies
Chapter 9 - Case 10
A minor named Alice entered into a contract with Silver Flatware Ltd. for purchasing silverware on a long-term credit contract. The goods was delivered but the payment was not yet been fully made by Alice. Before she attain the age of majority, Alice repudiated the contract and refused to return the silverware. The company demanded a return of the silverware and refused to refund. The company sued Alice for the balance of purchase price.
The legal issues in this case are whether Alice has the legal capacity to the contract and whether Alice has the right to repudiate the contract. If the second question is answered affirmative, what the effect of repudiation will occur in this case? Should Alice return the silverware and should she be liable to the lost of teaspoons? Finally, should the Silver Flatware Ltd. Refund the money had been paid by Alice?
The plaintiff’s argument would be that the defendant must return the goods if she wants to repudiate the contract. The lost of teaspoons should be counted as damage to the goods and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the loss by charging compensation from the defendant.
The defendant’s argument would be that she has the right to repudiate the contract since she was a minor while entering into the contract and she repudiated the contract before her attaining of the age of majority. The defendant has the option to repudiate the contract because the contract has not been fully performed and it was signed for purchasing non-necessary goods. The defendant was entitled to a return of the payment as she was a minor at the time she entered into the contract. The defendant was not liable to the lost of teaspoons since it was not a direct result of the minor’s deliberate act and it was not recoverable by the merchant.
In my opinion, the probable decision of the court would be that the defendant must return the goods and the plaintiff must refund all the monies