Reply to each person Neysa Woods In my opinion Larry is not owed anything from J

Reply to each person Neysa Woods In my opinion Larry is not owed anything from John in the present moment, Larry’s request is unconscionable. John acted in good faith, he executed all parts of their agreement which was to provide a kitchen table and chairs. Larry inspected the used merchandise and accepted the offer. UCC 2-306(2) states- “A lawful agreement (Links to an external site.) by either the seller (Links to an external site.) or the buyer (Links to an external site.) for exclusive dealing in the kind of goods (Links to an external site.) concerned imposes unless otherwise agreed an obligation by the seller to use best efforts to supply the goods and by the buyer to use best efforts to promote their sale (Links to an external site.).” Nothing is written nor established in regard to the delivery or pickup of the furniture. There were no additional negotiations of terms once the exchange of payment occurred. Once the fire occurred- John’s insolvent UCC 1-201(23) by being unable to pay his debt to Larry. John’s refusal to refund his money is not out of malice but shear unconsciousness. The mans home has been obliterated during a quick moment of borrowing a vehicle, to remove the furniture from is property.Now to Larry’s defense- due to expectation damages Promissory Estoppel can be brought into action. “Promissory estoppel refers to the doctrine (Links to an external site.)that a party (Links to an external site.)may recover on the basis of a promise made when the party’s reliance (Links to an external site.)on that promise was reasonable (Links to an external site.), and the party attempting to recover (Links to an external site.) detrimentally relied (Links to an external site.)on the promise.” Once the fire occurred. John should’ve assured Larry some type of restitution. Not the same day of the fire but some sort of payment remedy within a reasonable time frame.Rohwer, C. D., Skrocki, A. M., & Malloy, M. P. (2017). Contracts in a nutshell (8th ed.). St. Paul (Minn.): West academic publishing.Andrew YanceyAccording to the UCC “A contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract” (UCC 2-204 (1)). Also, the UCC states that “an agreement sufficient to constitute a contract for a sale may be found even though the moment of its making is undetermined” (UCC-204 (2). Given this precedent set in the UCC, I don’t believe Larry has grounds to demand a refund given the original stipulations of the sale of the goods. Because Larry left the furniture overnight and there were no agreements set in stone regarding the transportation of the goods then Larry will have to deal with the consequences of leaving his property there given the unfortunate circumstances. Although, I do believe that given the unforeseen circumstances John should refund the money.The UCC states “the buyer is relying on the sellers’ skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods” (UCC 2-315). This covers the Implied Warranty: Fitness for Particular Purpose but this warranty doesn’t apply to unforeseen circumstances ie. A house burning down. Because there is no agreement to store such goods after the sale was processed there is no reasonable expectation that John has any additional responsibility to ensure the safekeeping of the sold items within his household. Under the UCC there should be additional terms in acceptance or confirmation in order to cover unforeseen circumstances such as this. I am hopeful that under these circumstances that John would refund the money to Larry but legally I believe Larry has no grounds to pursue legal action if refused a refund.Works Cited
Requirements: 75 words or more

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *