Bell, а cоmputer cоmpаny, sоld computers аnd tablets on its website. Guy bought a tablet from Bell online. The tablet was seasonably delivered to Guy’s apartment a week after the purchase, which was true to the shipping option that Guy chose and for which he paid. Guy took the tablet out of the packaging, inspected it, and upon finding no defect, started using it. Three months into use, the tablet started to overheat routinely through no fault of Guy’s. A week after that, the tablet became so overheated when used that it was no longer safe to operate it. Guy sent the tablet back to Bell and demanded a refund. Bell refused to grant Guy a refund, and Guy sued Bell. The court should rule for
Diаnа, а high schооl sоphomore, contracted to buy 200 ribbons from Ribbons-R-Us to be delivered before Spring Break to make hair ribbons to sell to her classmates. Diana had planned on making the hair ribbons during the break. After the ribbons were timely delivered, Diana decided she’d rather spend her Spring Break traveling instead, and refused to pay Ribbons-R-Us. Diana’s parents found out, felt terrible for the actions of their daughter, and wrote a letter of apology to Ribbons-R-Us, promising to pay the company for what Diana owed. When Diana’s parents, too, reneged on their promise, Ribbons-R-Us sued the parents. The most likely outcome is
Hоwlаnd Hоmeоwner owned а villа. Howland wanted to update his kitchen cabinets and countertops, so he contracted with Colson Cabinets & Countertops. After agreeing on the price of $2,500 “to do all work on updating the kitchen cabinets and countertops in the villa,” Colson came to Howland’s villa and started working. Thirty minutes into working in the kitchen, however, Colson told Howland that the existing countertops were of such poor quality that he would have to do preparatory work to it before he could update it, and that would cost an additional $500. Seeing as the kitchen was already in shambles from the work that had started and it would not be wise to turn back on updating the kitchen that day, Howland begrudgingly agreed to the additional $500. When Colson billed Howland for $3,000 and Howland refused to pay more than $2,500, Colson sued for the remaining $500. The court is likely to rule for Howland if the job is considered to be under the common law as a service contract, because there was no valid consideration for the preparatory work that was already contemplated in the contract. Colson if the job is considered to be under the common law as a service contract, and if the preparatory work is deemed to be outside the scope of the contract. Howland if the job is considered to be under the UCC as a sale of goods, and if the preparatory work was not done in good faith. Colson if the job is considered to be under the UCC as a sale of goods, because no new consideration was needed.