Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Question
1 Approved Answer
1. options: a) reliance interest b) expectation interest c) restitution interest d) equitable interest 2. options: a) reliance interest in its agreement with JVC b)
1. options: a) reliance interest
Twin Creeks Entertainment signed a deal with U.S. JVC Corp. in which jVC would buy 60,000 feature-fiim videocassettes from Twin Creeks over a three-year period. JVC intended to distribute the cassettes nationwide. Relying on its deal with JVC. Twin Creeks signed an agreement with Paramount Pictures, agreeing to purchase a minimum of $600,000 worth of Paramount cassettes over a two-year period. JC breached its deal with Twin Creeks and refused to accept the cassettes it had agreed upon. Twin Creeks sued and claimed. among other damages, the money it owed to Paramount. JVC moved to dismiss the claim based on the Paramount contract, on the ground that Twin Creeks, the seller of goods, was not entitled to such damages. What kind of damages is Twin Creeks seeking? Please rule on the motion to dismiss. 1. If the court requires IVC to pay Twin Creeks the full amount of money it was obligated to pay under the contract. Twin Creeks will recelve its 2. The 5600.000 that Twin Creeks owes Paramount is Twin Creeks' 3. Can Twin Creeks demand specific performance from juC? 4. If JC told Twin Creeks that it wos going to breach the contract before Twin creeks entered into its agreement with Paramount. Twin Creeks enter into the agreement with Paramount and then sue jVC for the money it owed under that new agreement. 5. 1s Twin creeks entitied to any consequential damages b) expectation interest
c) restitution interest
d) equitable interest
2. options: a) reliance interest in its agreement with JVC
b) expectation interest in its agreement with JVC
c) restitution interest with JVC
d) equitable interest with JVC
e) nominal damages
3. options: a) Yes, because JVC breached the agreement
b) No, because the cassettes are not unique
c) No, because the contract was not for an interest land
4. options: a) could
b) could not
5. options: a) Yes, probably because JVC breached the contract
b) No, the seller of goods is generally not entitled to consequential damages
c) Yes, provided that JVC could reasonably foresee them
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started