chapter 25, question 14

Harry Ulmas signed a contract to buy a new car from Acey Oldsmobile. He was allowed to keep his old car until the new car was delivered. The sales contract gave him a trade-in value of $650 on the old car but specified that the car would be reappraised when it was brought to the dealer. When Ulmas brought the trade-in to the dealer, an Acey employee took it for a test drive and said that the car was worth between $300 and $400. Acey offered Ulmas only $50 for his trade-in. Ulmas refused to buy from Acey and purchased from another dealer, who appraised the trade-in at $400. Ulmas sued for breach of con- tract on the grounds of violation of good faith. Was he right? [Ulmas v. Acey Oldsmobile, Inc., 310 N.Y.S.2d 147 (N.Y. Civ.)

chapter 26, question 5,

McNeely entered a contract with Wagner to pay $250,000 as a lump sum for all timber present in a given area that Wagner would remove for McNeely. The contract estimated that the volume in the area would be 780,000 board feet. Wagner also had provisions in the contract that made no warranties as to the amount of lumber and that he would keep whatever timber was not harvested if McNeely ended the contract before the harvesting was complete. The $250,000 was to be paid in three advances. McNeely paid two of the three advances but withheld the third payment and ended the contract because he said there was not enough timber. Wagner filed suit for the remaining one-third of the payment. McNeely said Wagner could not have the remaining one-third of the payment as well as the transfer; he had to choose between the two remedies. Is he correct? [Wagner v. McNeely, 38 U.C.C. 2d 1176 (Or.)]

chapter 26, question 10,

McInnis purchased a tractor and scraper as new equipment of the current model year from Western Tractor & Equipment Co. The written contract stated that the seller disclaimed all warranties and that no warranties existed except those stated in the contract. Actually, the equipment was not the current model but that of the prior year. The equipment was not new but had been used for 68 hours as a demonstrator model, after which the hour meter had been reset to zero. The buyer sued the seller for damages. The seller's defense was based on the ground that all liability for warranties had been dis- claimed. Was this defense valid? [McInnis v. Western Tractor & Equipment Co., 388 P.2d 562 (Wash.)]

chapter 26, question 13

Ramtreat Metal Technology provided a "double your money back" remedy in its contracts for the sale of its metal drilling assemblies. A buyer filed suit seeking consequential damages and cost of replacement. Ramtreat said that its clause was a limitation of remedies. Could Ramtreat limit its remedies to "double your money back"? [Adcock v. Ramtreat Metal Technology, Inc., 44 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1026 (Wash. App.)]

Textbook:

Twomey, David and Marianne Moody Jennings,Business Law: Principles for Today's Commercial Environment,West Legal Studies in Business, 2017, 5th edition.

NB: please can you cite any other references.