Damages for Breach of Contract

The Main Issue

The main issue, in this case, includes two friends, Kathe and Michael, who have entered a partnership. They have both defined their roles and responsibilities. However, Michael decided to make a purchase, which was part of his duty. While out of business, there is a financial obligation that is required. Thus, it is a matter of determining whether Kathe is a partner in this business and if she should pay the liability of $ 9,000 to the supplier.

Rule

Before analyzing this case, some statutes are relevant. Referring to the Partnership Act of 1891, two people who come together to start a business should define their responsibilities, duties, as well as the ratio of sharing proceeds. This implies that the decision has to be made in advance so that the partners are aware of their duties. Partners need to decide the profit and loss sharing ratio. Just like in the case of Katz v. Cellco Partnership (2015), when the rate of capital contribution is the same, the profits and losses should also be shared in equally. Partners are expected to execute their mandate and duties to ensure the business succeeds. However, the partnership Act defines that some decisions, when made on behalf of the company, are equally binding. If one partner decides on an issue which leads to a loss, both must share the important loss in an equal manner given that the decision was made for the business (Moyle, 2017, 34).

Another rule is the law of contract

Michael was responsible for ordering and making purchases for the foodstuffs used in the restaurant. In his line of duty, he agreed with the Australian Truffle Delicacies. Thus, there is a contractual obligation that the Australian Truffle Delicacies would deliver the items, and in return, get paid for the services offered. A contract establishes a relationship between two parties. Also, Kathe and Michael have a contractual relationship. Each has duties and responsibilities defined. In the case of bleach, there are damages and the responsible party should bear the burden. The partners need to perform their tasks with due diligence. However, an act that leads to a loss, while serving the business, should be shared equally. Also, the sale of goods agreement applies to this case. Once goods have been delivered, payment should be made according to the terms agreed (Kumar, 2016, 78). Any act to delay such payment amounts to a breach of contract that can lead to a lawsuit.

Application

In this case, Kathe and Michael got into a legal partnership with agreements. Each had a defined responsibility. Based on the use of the Partnership Act, losses and profits would be shared equally. Michael had done his duty by making an order since he was responsible for making purchase decisions.

On the other hand, it was clearly defined that Kathe could keep the books and recruit staff. The two partners would run the overall operations of the restaurant. What happened to Michael is an act of God that he had to be out of the business of some time. As was in the case of Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, the one responsible for making payments should do so as a matter of duty. If the goods were sold and used in the restaurant, then Kathe should make the payment. The contract between the supplier and the partnership should not be bleached given that Michael acted in the best interest of the business.

Conclusion

Based on the Partnership Act, the law of contract, and the Sale of Goods Act, Kathe has the responsibility of making payments as well as keeping the books of accounting. She is, thus, a partner in this business and needs to pay the liability of $ 9000. However, this should be from the company and not his responsibility.

Case two

Issue

Having got into a contract, Damien met all the terms and Cassandra consented to it. However, the type of good deliveries not what was ordered. The issue is if there is a breach of the contract terms and weather Damien should be compensated for a breach of contract. Thus, it should be determined whether the agent of the seller acted in the best interest by delivering a different product contract to what was agreed during the deal.

Rule

The contract law defines all the elements that each part should meet for an agreement to be enforceable. One has to make an offer for which there should be accepted. Also, the law says that the activity should involve a legal purchase or item. Similarly, there is a counter offer and considerations. In case of a breach of the terms, as agreed by the agents, there should be compensation for damages. This rule, together with the Sale of Goods Act, provides a framework that guides people in a contractual relationship. A sale of goods contract is legally enforceable, and in case of breach, there must be damages. As was in the fact of Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, when an agent sells goods contrary to what was ordered, the buyer should be compensated for damages.

Application

When Damien gets into a contract with the dealer, he explains the specifications of the motorcycle he wanted. Cassandra provided useful advice which makes the two get into a legal agreement. The specifications for the color, model, cost, as well as the manufacturer are provided. However, the dealer breaches the contractual terms by delivering a good which was not ordered. In this case, Casandra delivers a motorcycle with a different color and manufacturer. In the case of Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, the dealer was liable by providing goods that were not ordered. This implies that agents who get into a contract should be responsible for the mistakes they make in serving their clients. Also, the buyer makes a payment with specific details of the goods that he wanted. The delivery is agreed upon, and a payment is made. However, the dealer delivers a different commodity without providing information to Demien for the change of their agreement. The dealer owes Damien a responsibility. Damean relies on the contractual relationship with the dealer. It was, thus, through an act of negligence that the buyer suffered a loss by failing to get the utility expected according to the agreement.

Conclusion

The buyer is entitled to be compensated for damages. It was through the contractual relationship that Damien suffers a direct financial loss. Also, the dealer fails to meet the terms of the contract amounting to a bleach. The buyer should sue the dealer for damages.

Case three

Issue

In this case, the questions to ask is whether Sara should be paid the remedies that she claimed for the bleach of the contractual relationship with Lee.

Rule

The law of contract is apparent in defining the relationship between two parties. Based on the elements of a valid deal, Lee and Sara agreed on the supply of goods. The sale of goods law also provides some of the authorities that guide delivery. Products should be delivered with the specifications agreed upon during the contract. A contract has an offer and an agreement. Suffer made an offer, and Lee accepted. In return, Lee could be paid for the goods delivered. Also, it should be noted that Sara is in business and needs to serve her customers to make profits. When the order is made, there should be particular details that govern the delivery of goods. In a sale of goods contract, the commodities ordered should be delivered in time, right quality, as well as quantities. In the case of Park v. WELCH FOODS, it was decided that all delivered goods in a sale of commodities contract should be given to fit the right uses. Thus, the products that have adverse effects on the health of the consumers amounts to a breach of contract. Just like in this case, Sara had received the goods with a label with the descriptions on the composition and usage. However, this was again to the contractual terms. Referring to the case of Walker v. Builddirect. Com Technologies Inc. (Okla. 2015), terms of sale are an essential part of a contract. Therefore, any bleach which amounts to damages should be the responsibility of the supplier. Also, this case inferred the essence of a verbal and written contract.

Analysis

It is clear that there was a contract between Vincent and Sara. The miller would supplier the flour according to the specifications. However, there was a condition that the flour should not contain any trace of gluten. This was a condition based on the requirements of the consumers. In return, Vincent gave an assurance that Sara would get the required type and amount of flour. Thus, Sara relied on the promises made by the Miler and made an order. However, when the goods were checked, they could not meet the agreed standards and this was an automatic breach (Hasan and Masood, 2015). Inside the flour, there is a warning note for the possibility of gluten. This is enough evidence that the delivered goods did not meet the agreed qualities. Thus, Sara would incur severe losses for the costs incurred and anticipated profits from the sale of the products.

First, there was a contractual relationship between Sara and Lee Vincent. Sara relied upon this relationship to make money out of the sales of the goods to her customers. However, Vincent failed to deliver the agreed quality for the floor. As a result, Sara suffered a direct financial loss due to the bleach of the contract by the miller. Sara could not supplier the anticipated loaves and cakes due to the failure by Vincent to deliver gluten-free flour. Were it not for the relationship between Vincent and Sara. The loss could not have been incurred. However, the relationship which Sara relied upon was bleached, and it led to a loss of $ 6000.

Conclusion

Sara has the right to claim a remedy of $ 6000 for the losses incurred as a result of the breach of the sale of goods contract by Lee Vincent.

References

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 769 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Hasan, S.M. and Masood, A., 2015. Law of Contract.

Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners, LP, 748 F.3d 975 (10th Cir. 2014).

Katz v. Cellco Partnership, 794 F.3d 341 (2d Cir. 2015).

Kumar, A., 2016. 39_Textbook on Indian Partnership Act with Limited Liability Partnership Act 2010.

Moyle, J.B., 2017. The contract of sale in the civil law. Рипол Классик.

Park v. WELCH FOODS, INC., No. 5: 12-cv-06449-PSG (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2014).

Partnership Act, 1891