1.Oceanside entered into a contract with the seller Old Tennessee, for the purchase of $6,431 worth of plants.The terms were sale and delivery C.O.D. with the express provision of "No Risk to Supplier," and a large logo at the top of papers stating:

"NOTICE: ALL SHIPMENTS TRAVEL AT RISK AND COST OF PURCHASER."

The plants were shipped by an experienced truck common carrier.Upon arrival in New York, it appeared as though some plants were in a poor state because of excessive heat.Although the carrier on its own marked the bill of lading to indicate that the temperature in the truck should be 50 degrees, this was not done for at least a portion of the journey.Oceanside rejected the shipment by writing "rejected" on the back of the trucker's bill of lading.However, the plants were retained "on consignment" at Oceanside's premises.There were no other formal written rejections or official notices of breach or defects given by the buyer to seller at any point prior to trial.Discuss who has the risk of loss.

2.The plaintiff, Donald Laird has a bachelor of science degree in animal science, had previously been employed at the university's swine research center, had managed a feed mill, had been employed as a herdsman for Hog Breeders, Incorporated, had worked for five years for Armour & Company at its feeder pig operations, and was a branch manager of the Scribner Co-op, Inc. for 14 years.Laird's assistant manager while at the Co-op was Gary Ruwe. When Laird quit the co-op, Ruwe became the manager.Later, Laird went to Co-op to purchase some feed ingredients for his hogs. In speaking with Ruwe, Laird learned that the Co-op grain bin was not operating properly and therefore the corn was not drying properly.If the corn does not dry properly, it can collect mold and insects.Laird said he would take 1300 bushels of corn if Ruwe could pull the corn out of the middle of the grain bin.The corn was delivered to Laird where he noticed some damaged corn and an odor that indicated that the corn may have mold.Laird did not reject the shipment, however.Laird then began to feed the corn to his hogs.The boars began to develop pneumonia, began vomiting, and would not eat regularly.When it was time for the sows to farrow, the sows had an abnormally high number of miscarriages and stillborns.The ultimate conclusion was that the corn delivered was tainted with vomitoxins, a toxic substance that made the corn unmarketable as feed.Laird sued the Co-op for breach of the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability.In order to recover under the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose what does Laird have to prove? What is the implied warranty of merchantability?Does Laird have a successful claim with this warranty?

3.Hammer bought a tool set from Weekend Projects, Inc. and signed a consumer credit contract promising to pay for the tool set in 12 monthly installments.Weekend promptly negotiated the instruction to its affiliate Easy Finance Co. in exchange for a discounted payment.Easy Finance gave value for the instrument, in good faith, and without knowledge of any defects or claims against the instrument.The tool set was defective and therefore Hammer stopped making the monthly payments.Easy Finance sues Hammer for the balance due on the instrument.Can Hammer raise this personal defense (breach of implied warranty of merchantability) against Easy Finance?Discuss.