Question

A sheep rancher agreed in writing to sell all the wool shorn from her sheep during the next shearing season to Wool Weavers, Inc. The writing did not include a price or any statement as to the quantity of wool to be delivered. After the shearing season ended, the sheep rancher refused to deliver the wool to Wool Weavers, Inc., denying that they had a contract.

Wool Weavers has sued under the provisions of Article 2. How should this case be decided?

	Wool Weavers, Inc. will win. This is a valid and enforcement output contract.
	Wool Weavers, Inc. will win. The agreement with the sheep rancher was in writing and signed, so she cannot deny that they reached an agreement.
	Wool Weavers, Inc. will lose. An agreement can omit either price or quantity, but it cannot omit both and remain enforceable.
	Wool Weavers, Inc. will lose. The agreement is unenforceable due to a lack of definite terms or a definite time for performance.
	Since two terms were omitted from the agreement, the parties must go to arbitration to resolve the controversy.

Filmore purchased a new TV from Allison's Appliances, Inc., an authorized TV dealer. The price was $499. The written contract contained a one-year warranty as to parts and labor as long as the set was returned to an authorized dealer for any repairs or adjustments. The contract also contained a disclaimer of any express warranty protection other than the specific express warranties covered in the contract. It also stated that the writing was the entire contract.

Filmore claims that during his discussion with the sales person he was orally promised that the TV would be serviced in his home at no cost if anything went wrong during the first six months after the sale.

Which of the following would be Allison's best defense against this alleged warranty?

Question 10 options:

	1) The Statute of Frauds.
	2) The parol evidence rule.
	3) That all warranty protections were properly disclaimed in the written contract.
	4) That the sales person lacked the apparent authority to grant any warranty protections.
	5) That providing in-home repair services is not commercially reasonable.

In September Cobb Company contracted with Thrifty Oil to purchase 100,000 gallons of heating oil from thrifty at a price of $1.95 per gallon, with delivery to be made in 4 shipments of 25,000 gallons at 3 week intervals over the next winter.

Because of an unseasonably warm winter, Cobb only took delivery of three shipments, refusing the fourth and final 25,000 gallon shipment because it wasn't needed. Thrifty is suing Cobb for breach of contract. What result?

Question 11 options:

	1) Thrifty will lose. Cobb was excused from performance due to the unexpectedly mild winter.
	2) Thrifty will lose. Both parties are merchants and the UCC requires merchants to act in a commercially reasonable manner. Paying for heating oil that is not needed is not commercially reasonable.
	3) Thrifty will win because this is a requirement contract and Cobb agreed that it would require four shipments.
	4) Thrifty will win because Cobb agreed to purchase 100,000 gallons, to be delivered in four shipments. The change in circumstances due to weather did not excuse performance. Bush Hardware ordered 300 Ram brand hammers from Obama Tools. Obama Tools accepted the order in writing. On the final day before delivery was due, Obama discovered that it did not have enough Ram brand hammers to fill the order, so it sent 300 Strong brand hammers instead. Obama stated on its invoice that the shipment was sent as an accommodation due to a shortage of Ram brand hammers. Which of the following statements is true in this situation? Question 12 options: 1) Obama's note of accommodation effectively cancels the contract with Bush, excusing Obama from any duty to deliver. 2) Bush's order can be accepted only by shipping Ram brand hammers. Obama is therefore in breach of contract. 3) Obama's shipment of another brand is an accommodation shipment, allowing Bush the option of accepting the substitute performance as satisfaction of the contract or returning the substitute performance with no further obligations for either party. 4) Obama's shipment of Strong brand hammers is a counter-offer to Bush's original offer, and no contract currently exists between the parties. 5) Obama accepted when it shipped hammers, but breached since it shipped the wrong hammers
	5) Thrifty will win because the agreement was in writing and written contracts are always enforced.

Answer 1

Answer 1) Option A. Wool Weavers, Inc. will win. This is a valid and enforcement output contract.

explanation : A contract for the sale of goods to be made "in any manner sufficient to show agreement." Under the Uniform code of conduct , the price can be consider as reasonable price at the time of delivery.

Answer 2) Option B The Parol evidence rule.

(UCC 2-202) condition.

Answer 3) option D.Thrifty will win because Cobb agreed to purchase 100,000 gallons, to be delivered in four shipments. The change in circumstances due to weather did not excuse performance.

: Cobb is obligated to purchase the entire 100,000 gallons from Thrifty as agreed upon in the contract.

Answer 4) Option C: Obama's shipment of another brand is an accommodation shipment, allowing Bush the option of accepting the substitute performance as satisfaction of the contract or returning the substitute performance with no further obligations for either party.