Hi, I need help with essay on Commercial Law. Paper must be at least 2000 words. Please, no plagiarized work!Download file to see previous pages... Before it could have been done, the wine cooling cab

Hi, I need help with essay on Commercial Law. Paper must be at least 2000 words. Please, no plagiarized work!

Before it could have been done, the wine cooling cabinet was damaged by vandals. The damage that was made after the contract of sale was beyond the control of Abraham as he could have done nothing to stop it. Therefore, the goods that formed subject matter of the contract perished before the risk passed to the buyer without any fault of either the seller or the buyer. S. 7 of Sale of Goods Act (SOGA), 19791 states that, “Where there is an agreement to sell specific goods and subsequently the goods, without any fault on the part of the seller or buyer, perish before the risk passes to the buyer, the agreement is avoided.” Also, by the application of S.18 (Rule 2)2, the cabinet was never put into a deliverable state and the property in it stayed with Abraham. Therefore, the agreement between Abraham and Brooke Ltd would be avoided and Abraham would have no liability to Brooke Ltd under this agreement. Against Charlie Abraham offered Charlie to sell three dozen bottles of 1967 Chateau Trent red wine. Charlie accepted this offer right away as the price offered by Abraham was very good. At that time, Abraham did not know that the vandals who broke into his warehouse had stolen one dozen bottles of 1967 Chateau Trent red wine. ...

But it would not be a fair result because only a part of goods, one dozen bottles out of three dozen, were stolen and the rest is still in a deliverable state. These bottles can be delivered to Charlie. The application of Sainsbury v Street5 can give us a fair and a flexible result. In this case, the parties made a contract before the harvest in which the seller agreed to sell his entire crop to the buyer. The actual crop yielded much less than the estimated due to bad weather. The seller, therefore, sold majority of his crop to another buyer and sold the rest to the original buyer for a much higher price. It was held that the seller was liable to pay damages to the buyer because a lower tonnage was not produced due to any fault of the seller and none of the parties had anticipated this. By the application of Sainsbury v Street, Abraham would have to deliver the rest of the bottles at the same price to Charlie if Charlie agrees to pay the same price for two dozen bottles because none of the parties had anticipated a theft. Abraham is not absolved of his performance of the contract. Against Dinsa On Wednesday, Dinsa, the owner of a local florist’s shop, purchased a dozen bottles of French champagne from Abraham and paid in cash. She made payment when Abraham told her that he had plenty of French Champagne in stock. The property in bottles had not passed to Dinsa at the time of payment because the bottles had not been appropriated for her under S.18 (Rule 2) of SOGA. Abraham promised to deliver the bottles to her.