Commercial Law 2201Instructor: Gordon C. JohnsonChufei Wu A00401541March 29, 2017Commercial Law Case Analysis1. Chapter 5 – Case 5?Summary: Marie-Claude operated a bowling alley which is adjacent to a residential area.Many small children used the parking lot near the bowling alley as a playground, andMarie-Clause constantly warned them they might get injured.
But a child climb onto theflat roof of the bowling alley while Marie-Claude was not there, fell to the ground andgot sincere injured. Whose responsibility of this case?For plaintiff: The owner of the building has been already warned those children do notclimb up to the roof, Meanwhile, those children’s parents have responsibilities to lookafter their kids. According to the concept of Foreseeability, a child does not hold liable intort if they are in tender age.
As the case states, the child’s age is 6. The child can’t berecognized as a liable person, which means he cannot foresee the injury to himself.Although Marie-Claude has ordered the child off the roof for several times, Marie-Claudeis still responsible for protecting the child form injury.For defendant: As a building owner, Marie-Claude was constantly asking the childrenkeep far from the parking lot, she did her best to protect the children from injury, fromthe duty of care perspective.
She warned those children(trespassers) many times, andminimized the risk. Because she is operating a bowling alley, she can’t always in theparking lot and warning those children, so this might be a compensatory damage ornominal damage.Conclusion: This case belongs to unintentional acts of a person caused injury to the other.The landlord also has an obligation to maintain their property secure enough, and preventother people from harm and injure.
2. Chapter 7 – Case 3?Summary: Armstrong Aggregates Co. wrote a letter to Bishop offer $180/per tonne goodson May 2nd.
Bishop accepted it after they found out the market is $185, and sent back theacceptance on May 30th. Armstrong Aggregates refused this offer and increased the priceto $185.For plaintiff: According to the agreement between Armstrong Aggregate Co. andBishop, Armstrong Aggregate offered the price at $180 per tonne. Although the price ofscrap mica has already increased during the period, Armstrong Aggregate Co.
did notcancel the offer before Bishop received the letter on May 3. Meanwhile, ArmstrongAggregate Co. didn’t communicate with Bishop about the changing price, so it shouldtake responsibility to the transaction. As for Bishop, it obey the rules of an offer andacceptance.
For defendant: Armstrong Aggregate Co. offered the price to Bishop, and Bishopaccept the offer by counter offer, which means the agreement was agree by both sides.The price of scrap mica was $180 per tonne contract was valid. However, Bishop tooknearly half month to accept the contract, which means Bishop might intent to delay theschedule to accepted the contract.
Thus, Armstrong Aggregate process a new contractwith Bishop by the latest price.Conclusion: In this case, Bishop received the letter on May 3; on May 22, Bishop wroteback and accepted the offer. According to the acceptance of an offer, during the offeringprocess, none of them terminated or ordered rejection. Bishop accept the offer by counter,and Armstrong Aggregate Co. did not cancel the offer before Bishop wrote back the letter on May 30th.
Armstrong Aggregate Co. should take a responsibility to the transactionand issue a transaction with Bishop with $180 per tonne.3. Chapter 9 – Case 10?Summary: In this case, Alice bought a 24-piece set of silver flatware, paid $100 withorder, and three-year term monthly payment of $50 each. A few weeks later, she got thesilver flatware. After made a few payments, Alice did not want to continue the paymentat all, so she wants to return the silver flatware. The legal issue is about whether Alicecan return the silver flatware back or not.
For plaintiff: Although Alice took the agreement when she was 17 years ago, she wasthe person who breach the contract, and her parents should carry the liability to help hermade decisions. Before we signed up to the agreement, the company had provided policyto Alice. Alice and her parents should foresee the consequence of breach of the contract.By statutes, legal institution has protected the minor from violation. Company can acceptAlice returns the silver flatware if the product has been good maintained. Unfortunately,she had lost several of the teaspoons. Therefore, company cannot accept the return ofsilver flatware.
For defendant: Alice accepted the contract when she was 17 years ago, which meansshe has no ability to determine whether she can continue the payment in the future. Bystatutes, legal institution has protected the minor from violation. Therefore, she has rightto repudiate the payment within 18 years ago.Conclusion: According to the fact of this case, Alice is the person to disobey theagreement, but she was under 18 when she took the contract. Thus, she might have noability to determine whether to take the contract, so she has the right to stop the payment.On the other hand, the company has right to demand a return of the silverware andestimate a loss of the silverware, and request a compensation to Alice.
After closing theclaim, company can deduct the loss cost and issue a refund to Alice. 4. Chapter 13 – Case 4?Summary: In this case, Hansen wanted to purchase a sports car, and he needs to access a$5,000 loan from the bank. Before he took the loan from the bank, he signed anagreement with the car dealer and he would have to make the payment within 10 days.Unfortunately, the bank manager told Hansen that the most he could borrow from thebank would be $4,000.
Therefore, Hansen has $1,000 short in a few days. And he mightnot be able to afford the car.For plaintiff: Hansen has made an agreement with Sports Motor Sales Ltd. before heget approval from the regional office. Before he signed the contract, he should know it isnecessary for him to made a payment on time and obey the items of the agreement.
Thesalesman of sports Motor Sales Ltd. has already hold the car for a few days, so they havefulfilled their responsibilities. If Hansen cannot make a payment within 10 days, thecompany has right to sale the car and keep the deposit of Hansen.For defendant: Hansen made a discussion with his bank manager, and he was assured toget the loans from the bank. But the promise did not fulfill.
In this case, the contractbetween Hansen and the Sports Car company could be changed to a new agreement onlyif Hansen’s bank manager can give $5,000 loan to Hansen.Conclusion: The alternation of the terms of the existing agreement must be a significantnature before the contract will be discharged by the change. If the loan approval has someproblems, so the bank can agree Hansen to discharge it and replace it with a newagreement. In addition, according to condition precedent, when a condition precedent isagreed upon, the agreement is prepared and signed; only the performance is postponedpending in the fulfillment of the condition. Once fulfilled, performance is necessary toaffect discharge.