Will Hunter be successful in its claim? Why or why not?
| ♥ 0 |
Webster, Inc., dealt in automobile accessories at wholesale. Although he manufactured a few items in his own factory, among them windshield wipers, Webster purchased most of his inventory from a large number of other manufacturers. In January, Webster entered into a written contract to sell Hunter two thousand windshield wipers for $4,900, delivery to be made June 1. In April, Webster’s factory burned to the ground, and Webster failed to make delivery on June 1. Hunter, forced to buy windshield wipers elsewhere at a higher price, is now trying to recover damages from Webster. Will Hunter be successful in its claim? Why or why not? |
Explanation
Evidence to support the argument that Buyer H would win the case is as follows:
The fire took place in the month of April, and the windshields need to be delivered in the month of June.SellerW could have performed this duty by delivering any kind of windshield as the contract did not contain any specific goods. SellerW has breached the contract by not delivering the goods on time to BuyerH.
Evidence to support the argument that Buyer H would not win the case is as follows:
The impossibility clause excuses the promisor from any performance. The destruction of SellerW's factory has made it impossible for Seller W to supply the windshields.
Sample Response
The case talks about a Seller W and a Buyer H.The Seller W could not sell as per the agreement as the factory burned down, and the Buyer H files a case to claim the damages incurred due to breach of the contract.
The two sides of the argument are as follows:
BuyerH would win the case.
BuyerH would not win the case.
