Answered You can buy a ready-made answer or pick a professional tutor to order an original one.
FOR CASE #1Did Kenco have the opportunity to resell the mobile home which the Williams did not buy?FOR CASE #2If Bigelow-Sanford could have purchased the necessary jute at $1.04 per linear yard, would
FOR CASE #1
Did Kenco have the opportunity to resell the mobile home which the Williams did not buy?FOR CASE #2If Bigelow-Sanford could have purchased the necessary jute at $1.04 per linear yard, would its purchase on the spot market have been upheld as a proper cover?FOR CASE # 3Did the liquidated damages provision put the plaintiff in a better, equal, or worse position than it would have been had a default not occurred? Explain.FOR CASE #4What should T-Bar have done in this case?
- @
- 1030 orders completed
- ANSWER
-
Tutor has posted answer for $15.00. See answer's preview
*********** ***************** NameCourseDate Case 1Kenco *** *** have ** *********** ** ****** *** **** that the ******** failed ** buy ** *** *** ******** *** Williams *** supposed ** make site *********** *** the *** **** **** ******* **** *** *** home was **** tailored *** the ******** entered ******* *** Williams and ***** ***** **** lacked *** *********** ** ****** *** mobile home ***** ** ****** ** **** an ***** ***** *** ******** ******** the ******** ***** *** *** **** ** opportunity ** ****** *** ***** since **** elected *** to make *** ***** **** *** ******* Even ** **** ***** **** ******* * ready ****** *** *** ********* ********* the ****** was before *** order *** ***** *** ** ***** ****** *** the ******** *** *************** ***** **** purchased *** **** yard ** **** **** the *** of *** spot ***** ** *** ***** ***** ** ********** *** ******** ** *** ***** jute ** ******** ** be done in **** faith *** *** ******** ****** ** reasonable ** *************** *** ********* **** *** **** ******** instead ** ***** the ***** ***** ** **** **** it ***** be unreasonable *** *** acting ** **** ***** ** **** ************* *** **** ***** ***** ** reduced ** **** ******* ** *** *** ** $104 ***** have *** ** ** ************ ***** to *************** *** spot ***** ***** ** awarded ***** ** would ***** be ****** in **** ***** *** making a ********** ******** The ***** **** ****** ****** on *** circumstances *** ***** is ****** *** **** ***** **** only ******* ** in its use *** company ** ****** ** **** ***** *** the ******** ** ********** *** **** ***** ***** **** ******* *** prevail ** *** court ** **** deems **** the purchase *** unreasonable and *** **** in **** faithCase 3The ********** damages ********* ***** **** put Doorenbos Poultry ** * ***** ******** had *** ****** occurred *** ****** ******** *** ****** only ** ********** the ***** the purchase price or ******* *** ****** ******* Midwest ***** have ******** *** poultry ** ******** *** ****** *** ***** *** * ******* ********* ** Doorenbos ********* needed chicken ** the facility at *** ***** since **** **** *** **** ****** of ******* ** *** barn If ***** **** no ******* ** *** ******* **** *** ***** at the **** ***** ****** Doorenbos *********** its ************* ******* ** *********** *** the Midwest ******** **** ******* **** ********* would ***** more costs while ****** *** ** ******* *** ** **** ** egg-producing ******* The *********** ** the ******* as ******** ** the liquidated ******* ********* ** **** *** ******** ***** ********* **** ** was difficult ** ***** up *** ****** *** transportation Ultimately exercising *** clause **** **** the ********* ** * ***** *** positionCase ****** had ******* options ***** ** *** lower ********** ******** **** had ** *** liquidated damages ****** The ********* *** *** right ** ********** ******** *** **** had the ***** to **** the equipment *** only ****** T-Bar had was ** ** ******* ** the auction ** *** **** ***** ******** at *** auction ***** **** ******* **** * ****** ***** was **** *** the **** to reduce ***** ********* ** the ***** **** **** would **** purchased *** ********* and ***** it *** ** **** *** for ***** **********
