J & S counter claimed for full performance of the contract, seeking an order that Martin and Duke accept delivery of the KIS machine and pay the entire balance of the contract.

Category:

J & S counter claimed for full performance of the contract, seeking an order that Martin and Duke accept delivery of the KIS machine and pay the entire balance of the contract.

0
0

Daniel Martin and John Duke contracted with J & S Distributors, Inc., to purchase a KIS Magnum Speed printer for $17,000. The parties agreed that Martin and Duke would send one-half of the money as a deposit and would pay the balance upon delivery. They also agreed to the following provision:
 
In the event of non-payment of the balance of the purchase price reflected herein on due date and in the manner recorded or on such extended date which may be caused by late delivery on the part of [the seller], the Customer shall be liable for: (1) immediate payment of the full balance recorded herein; and (2) payment of interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum calculated on the balance due, when due, together with any attorney’s fees, collection charges and other necessary expenses incurred by [the seller].
 
When the machine arrived five days late, Martin and Duke refused to accept it, stating that the company had purchased a substitute machine elsewhere. Martin and Duke requested the return of its deposit, but J & S refused. Martin and Duke sued J & S for the return of its deposit.
 
J & S counter claimed for full performance of the contract, seeking an order that Martin and Duke accept delivery of the KIS machine and pay the entire balance of the contract.
 
a. What arguments would support the claim by Martin and Duke for the return of the deposit?

Daniel Martin and John Duke contracted with J & S Distributors, Inc., to purchase a KIS Magnum Speed printer for $17,000. The parties agreed that Martin and Duke would send one-half of the money as a deposit and would pay the balance upon delivery. They also agreed to the following provision:
 
In the event of non-payment of the balance of the purchase price reflected herein on due date and in the manner recorded or on such extended date which may be caused by late delivery on the part of [the seller], the Customer shall be liable for: (1) immediate payment of the full balance recorded herein; and (2) payment of interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum calculated on the balance due, when due, together with any attorney’s fees, collection charges and other necessary expenses incurred by [the seller].
 
When the machine arrived five days late, Martin and Duke refused to accept it, stating that the company had purchased a substitute machine elsewhere. Martin and Duke requested the return of its deposit, but J & S refused. Martin and Duke sued J & S for the return of its deposit.
 
J & S counter claimed for full performance of the contract, seeking an order that Martin and Duke accept delivery of the KIS machine and pay the entire balance of the contract.
 
b. What arguments would support the claim by J & S for full performance of the contract?

Daniel Martin and John Duke contracted with J & S Distributors, Inc., to purchase a KIS Magnum Speed printer for $17,000. The parties agreed that Martin and Duke would send one-half of the money as a deposit and would pay the balance upon delivery. They also agreed to the following provision:
 
In the event of non-payment of the balance of the purchase price reflected herein on due date and in the manner recorded or on such extended date which may be caused by late delivery on the part of [the seller], the Customer shall be liable for: (1) immediate payment of the full balance recorded herein; and (2) payment of interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum calculated on the balance due, when due, together with any attorney’s fees, collection charges and other necessary expenses incurred by [the seller].
 
When the machine arrived five days late, Martin and Duke refused to accept it, stating that the company had purchased a substitute machine elsewhere. Martin and Duke requested the return of its deposit, but J & S refused. Martin and Duke sued J & S for the return of its deposit.
 
J & S counter claimed for full performance of the contract, seeking an order that Martin and Duke accept delivery of the KIS machine and pay the entire balance of the contract.
 
c. Who should prevail? Explain.

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Explanation

To deal with the breach of contract, Individuals M and D have to accept by compensating for the obligation that is to be performed under the contract. Company J has suffered the contractual damages, which can be reimbursed with a penal sum and not with the complete value of the contract as the product is returned to Company J.

Verified Answer

Individuals M and D placed order was a mistake. They could claim that Individuals M and D are only liable to pay for the incidental damages to Company J for delivering the product in their premises.
The incidental damages that Individuals M and D have to pay for can be calculated based on the Uniform Commercial Code. The breach of the contract can be compensated with a penalty under the liquidated damages clause.

Explanation

The Individuals M and D have also partly paid for the product, which led Company J to move forward and send the product.
Individuals M and D have breached the contract by making a purchase from a different seller and rejecting this product. The balance amount as promised in the contract must be paid by Individuals M and D.

Verified Answer

Company J has the right to recover the price of the product delivered as per the contract. The contract was signed in agreement to the terms by both the parties.
The Individuals M and D have breached the contract by rejecting it. It is also a contract that was made conscionably as the buyer agreed to the purchase.

Explanation

Evidences to support the arguments are as follows:

Company J wins: Individuals M and D have breached the contract, and Company J has acted upon based on the money paid toward the contract in good faith. Individuals M and D are merchants who know the contract terms and should abide by the promise made under the Uniform Commercial Code act.
Individuals M and D win: Based on the liquidated damages clause, Individuals M and D are entitled to compensate only for the lost profits of Company J rather than for the complete contract amount.

Sample Response

The probable answers to the question are as follows:

 Judgement for Company J
Judgement for Individuals M and D

Purchase this answer to view it. $5
Login/Sign up for free, load your wallet instantly using PayPal or cards and purchase this solution to view it.


Get Help With Your Assignments

Place your order now and get a quality plagiarism-free paper via email.

Write My Paper For Me