Are these statements true

Statement 1

M5.4 Case Problem on Emery v. Weed

• Is the court's decision consistent with your common sense belief about whether risk of loss had passed? Explain how the court used the UCC to reach its conclusion.

With any commercial transaction, there is risk of loss. It's possible that either the buyer or seller in a transaction could bear the risk of loss, but the UCC helps to define which stages of the transaction present risk and which party bears this risk. The case of Emery v. Weed seems to be a pretty simple case in regards to the UCC. The buyer is not responsible for the loss of the goods, and the contract was breached when the seller failed to deliver the good. The risk of loss remains with the seller. The court used Pa.C.S. 2509(b) to reach its conclusion. The risk of loss had not passed the appellee because the appellant was holding the automobile as a bailee. The court did not believe that the appellant was a bailee, for it was holding the automobile not for the benefit of appellee's son, but to assure payment. Ethically speaking, I believe that Weeds should have refunded the down payments without question after hearing of the loss.

• Which primary value does the court's decision show it prefers?

The primary value the court 's decision show it prefers is accountability. The contract is made for the purchase of a Pacer Corvette, which the seller could not deliver. Clearly, the seller failed to deliver a good which is a breach of the sales contract. The court's decision shows that the seller had to be held accountable. No one wants to continue making payments for a good that will not be delivered to them.

• Which primary value does Weed Chevrolet probably prefer?

Weed Chevrolet probably prefer selfishness. Weed like many other companies care about being profitable. I believe businesses have a moral obligation to look for ways to do well while doing right and making a profit. Instead, Weed probably prefer to be selfish because they expected the buyer's family to continue making payments on his behalf after his death for a good that was not delivered or going to be delivered. Ethically speaking, I believe that Weeds should have refunded the down payments without question after hearing of the loss.

Statement 2

Hi Class,

The Uniform Commercial Code was created to regulate commercial transactions. By offering a uniform legal and contractual framework, it facilitates business transactions between corporations located in multiple states. In my opinion, the trial court's conclusion that the defendant did not bear the risk of loss was consistent because the plaintiff held the Pacer Corvette as bailiff under 13 Pennsylvania Code. The trial court also found that because the merchant was found liable for loss of deal damages under Section 2509, Section 2-613 of the U.C.C. does not apply (c). Common sense tells me that they are responsible because the Pacer was under their control and the act of theft occurred before the plaintiffs took possession of the Corvette

The court's decision, in my opinion, upholds the basic principles of fairness and minimizes the loss of an honest client. Also, I believe the court followed the tender rule, which is a branch of tender law and is applicable in most circumstances. The main guideline is that the text of the contract must clearly establish the rights and obligations of the parties. Bidding documents, which are the subject of a bidding dispute, contain this text (FindLaw, 2019).

Companies, in my opinion, don't really care about people; They only consider profitability. According to UCC Section 1-304, good faith is defined as acting in accordance with honesty, but also with acceptable commercial principles of fair dealing (Kubasek, 2020). I believe the Weed Company behaved in a selfish, insensible, and overridingly ambitious manner. This could affect them as a business because when people find out about this case, they will think that they are a company that does not have empathy. I think that the company should have sat down before what happened and that both parties reached a mutually beneficial agreement.