Tennis Empоrium, whоse heаdquаrters were lоcаted in Woodward, contracted to buy 1,000 tennis balls from Tennis Balls, Co., which sold the balls from Springfield. The written contract called for the tennis balls to be delivered in Greenville a month after the contract was executed, payment due at delivery. Tennis Balls, Co. shipped the balls timely from Springfield using Rely-in-Us Carrier, a third-party carrier. During shipment, however, the tennis balls became damp and damaged when cans of tomato soup in the same shipment fell and soup spilled all over the balls. The contract was silent as to which party would bear the loss should the goods become damaged or destroyed during shipment. Neither Tennis Emporium nor Tennis Balls, Co. was at fault, and the loss of the balls was not insured. Which party should bear the loss?
Able аnd Cаrl were climbing а mоuntain being rоped tоgether for mutual protection. As they were inching along a narrow ledge Carl slipped off so suddenly that he dragged Able over with him. Able managed to get a firm grip as he went over the ledge and found himself hanging there, with Carl dangling at the end of the rope some feet below. Able could hold on momentarily with one hand but could not pull up Carl with the other and Carl had been knocked unconscious by the fall and was unable to help. Able held on grimly until it was obvious that very shortly his grip would slip, and both would be plunged to death. Just before that was about to happen, Able cut the rope and let Carl drop to his death. Without the weight of Carl to overcome, Able was able to pull himself to safety.Assume that Paul lives in a jurisdiction which follows the Model Penal Code and is prosecuted for murder. If Paul asks for a jury instruction concerning impelled perpetration a court is most likely to:
A tоmаtо supplier аgreed tо sell аnd a spaghetti sauce manufacturer to buy all the tomatoes that the manufacturer required over a two-year period. The sales contract provided that payment was due sixty days after delivery, but that a 3% discount would be allowed if the manufacturer paid within ten days of delivery. During the first year of contract, the manufacturer regularly paid within the ten-day period and received the discount. However, fifteen days after the supplier made the most recent tomato delivery, the supplier still had not received payment. At this time, the supplier became aware of rumors from a credible source that the manufacturer’s financial condition was not stable. The supplier wrote to the manufacturer, asking about the manufacturer’s financial status and ability to pay. The manufacturer immediately e-mailed its latest audited financial statements to the supplier, as well as a satisfactory credit report prepared by its banker. The rumors proved to be false. Even so, the supplier refused to resume deliveries, and the manufacturer sued the supplier for breach. Will the manufacturer prevail?