Written Assignment 1- Two-page memo to your work supervisor summarizing your analysis of the courts decision in the lawsuit Federated Retail Holdings, Inc., v. Sanidown, Inc.

You have obtained part-time employment on the legal staff of Italian Food-at-Home, Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of specialty food products located in Brooklyn. The company manufactures and sells the Italian Food-at-Home brand products to supermarkets throughout the U.S. In addition to its manufacturer and wholesale businesses, the company also operates two retail stores located in New York City where it sells its own products as well as those of other suppliers.

Part of your job as an intern in the companys legal department is to reduce complex court cases to two-page summaries for use by the companys non-legal executives detailing important aspects of the lawsuits that may impact the business.

Your supervisor is interested in learning more about a case called Federated Retail Holdings, Inc., v. Sanidown, Inc. You have been given the assignment to read and analyze the case.

Write a two-page, single spaced memo (To, From, Date and Subject) to your supervisor, using 12-point font that includes the following information:

Part I. In an opening paragraph, tell your supervisor why you are writing this memo and describe the main subject of the case. Explain why a case involving down- and feather-filled products is relevant for Italian Food-at-Home, Inc.

Part II. Once you have carefully read the decision use the briefing format outlined in Appendix A in the textbook, present the essentials of the case under the following headings:

1. Facts

2. Issue

3. Decision

4. Reason

Plaintiffs presented no results pertaining to tests performed on any Fall 2006 goods, and no evidence of any non-conforming N.Y. U.C.C. 2-711(1) provides for a [...] buyer's recovery Fall 2006 goods was presented at trial. In addition, the Court of "so much of the price as has been paid." [citation omitted]. finds that no evidence was proffered tending to show that the Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover the price paid for Fall 2006 goods that had been shipped prior to the the goods that they removed from their stores and returned to cancellation of the contracts could not have been separated Defendant as a result of Defendant's breach of the Spring fromtherejectedSpring2006goods.amountofunpaidinvoicesfortheSpring2006program,and2006contract.Plaintiffsobviouslymaynotrecoverthe NofurthershipmentsorpaymentsweremadeafterJune21,2006.[...][]inunpaidinvoicesforSpring2006).thatamountwillthereforebesubtractedfromthepriceofthereturnedgoods.Therefore,Plaintiffspurchasepricedamagesare$545,006.72($804,761.71originallyinvoicedforSpring2006merchandisereturnedtoDefendant,minus$259,754.99 Plaintiffs presented no results pertaining to tests performed on any Fall 2006 goods, and no evidence of any non-conforming N.Y. U.C.C. 2-711(1) provides for a [...] buyer's recovery Fall 2006 goods was presented at trial. In addition, the Court of "so much of the price as has been paid." [citation omitted]. finds that no evidence was proffered tending to show that the Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover the price paid for Fall 2006 goods that had been shipped prior to the the goods that they removed from their stores and returned to cancellation of the contracts could not have been separated Defendant as a result of Defendant's breach of the Spring fromtherejectedSpring2006goods.amountofunpaidinvoicesfortheSpring2006program,and2006contract.Plaintiffsobviouslymaynotrecoverthe NofurthershipmentsorpaymentsweremadeafterJune21,2006.[...][]inunpaidinvoicesforSpring2006).thatamountwillthereforebesubtractedfromthepriceofthereturnedgoods.Therefore,Plaintiffspurchasepricedamagesare$545,006.72($804,761.71originallyinvoicedforSpring2006merchandisereturnedtoDefendant,minus$259,754.99