Download
1 / 8
90 likes | 1.15k Views
Grocery, Inc. Case Scenario. Makeysha Mckinnis, Robert Goede, Sara Leal, Scott Mullarkey, Aaron Majors LAW421 May 26, 2013 Shenia Kirkland. Grocery Inc. UCC.
E N D
Grocery, Inc. Case Scenario Makeysha Mckinnis, Robert Goede, Sara Leal, Scott Mullarkey, Aaron Majors LAW421 May 26, 2013 Shenia Kirkland
Grocery Inc. UCC • Article 2 of the UCC does apply to the contracts between Grocery, Inc. and its vendors. Article 2 defines numerous aspects of contracts and how they are formed and maintained. Article 2 covers tangible goods like foods and merchandise. Common law contracts also apply to contracts between Grocery Inc and its vendors. Common law is essentially made by courts; in that the law is not specifically passed by legislature, but rather has been based on the fundamentals of previous cases that had similar facts (Melvin, 2011). Since Article 2 is focused on material products and has actually been passed by legislature, common law assists Grocery, Inc. in services it contracts to outside companies like contractors, cleaners, and landscapers. Although common law would apply to material products like merchandise, Article 2 clearly spells out the law, whereas common law is subject to adaptations.
Grocery Inc. Renovations • Grocery, Inc. should win the breach of contract suit against Company A. The renovation contract covers the quality of workmanship that Grocery, Inc. agreed to when hiring Company A. The subcontractor B used by A did not meet the criteria of the contract. Additionally, Company A unilaterally decided that to finish the job was impossible. In actuality, Company A overscheduled construction jobs during a six-month time period which was a preventable situation that is the fault of Company A management, not an unforeseen circumstance subject to commercial impracticability. Therefore Grocery, Inc. had the right to an injunction as the change in crew was a material change, which was not under substantial performance in good faith subject to substitution and was not of mutual consent by both parties. • The only basis Company A would have had to legally subcontract duties of the job was to notify Grocery, Inc. of the situation and subcontract the job to a construction company with a comparable quality of workmanship that Grocery, Inc. was in agreement with or to come to new terms revising the amount of time Company A has to finish the job. Company A should have chosen to renegotiate under the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. This is when “one party (Company A) agrees to render a substitute performance in the future, known as accord, and the party (Grocery, Inc.) promises to accept that substitute performance in discharge of the existing performance obligation” (Melvin, 2011).
