Wilson brought suit against Ferguson for the contract price. What result?
| ♥ 0 |
Wilson Trading Corp. agreed to sell David Ferguson a specified quantity of yarn for use in making sweaters. The written contract provided that notice of defects, to be effective, had to be received by Wilson before knitting or within ten days of receipt of the yarn. When the knitted sweaters were washed, the color of the yarn “shaded” (i.e., variations in color from piece to piece appeared). David Ferguson immediately notified Wilson of the problem and refused to pay for the yarn, claiming that the defect made the sweaters unmarketable. Wilson brought suit against Ferguson for the contract price. What result? |
Explanation
Individual D has not been able to discover the change in color of the yarn before washing and knitting it. The process of washing and knitting the yarn has made the product lose its merchantability.
The unconscionable contract does not require being under any of the provisions of Uniform Commercial Code. The substantial damages created in the process of sale have to be recuperated from Company W.
Verified Answer
The decision is going to be favorable to Individual D based on limitations on remedies for the breach of warranty. The Uniform Commercial Code provides privileges to the parties to contract to make any changes to the warrant and limit any remedies, when there is a breach.
Though the contract specifies that Individual D should have noted the defects within 10 days or before. So, the provisions of the contract can be dislodged to inform the seller, Company W.
