Jeremy has reached an agreement to buy oats from Steven Bradford (SB). This agreement said that Jeremy would buy all the oats Steven grew.

Jeremy has reached an agreement to buy oats from Steven Bradford (SB). This agreement said that Jeremy would buy all the oats Steven grew.

1. a) Would such an agreement have been allowed under the common law? Please explain why or why not.
2. b) Is such an agreement allowed under the UCC? Please explain why or why not.

Their contract included the term FOB GCG Claremore. En route, the train the oats were being shipped in went off the rails and into a nearby river, soaking (and ruining) all the oats. Jeremy refused to pay and Steven has sued him.

c) What is the relevant law that applies to this situation?

d) Is Steven likely to succeed in getting Jeremy to pay him? Please explain why or why not applying the facts to the relevant law.

Jeremy hired Ralph Braun (RB) to produce a giant sculpture for the unveiling of the new milling section of the store. A week before the unveiling, Jeremy saw the sculpture and hated it. Truly hated it with every fiber of his being. Jeremy refused to pay Ralph and Ralph sued.

1. a) What type of contract provision would determine whether Ralph is successful in making GCG pay for the sculpture?
2. b) Please explain how the relevant provision would prevent GCG from needing to pay Ralph.
3. c) What assumption underlies all contracts and prevents the provision being discussion in this question from being taken advantage of?

Jeremy hired Bernice Dahms (BD) to perform at the opening. Bernice, a locally renowned Irish step dancer, was going to do her locally beloved interpretation of Riverdance. Bernice received a more lucrative offer, however, and sent her husband in her place. Her husband had neverhad any dance training, but had watched Bernice perform "upwards of 200 times".

Jeremy refused to let the husband dance or to pay and Bernice sued.

1. a) What is the relevant law?
2. b) Applying the facts of this case to the relevant law, should Jeremy be required to pay Bernice and/or her husband?

Jeremy also hired Emily Lyles (EL) to repaint the lines on the parking lot before the grand opening. Emily, in turn, agreed with Glen Forrest (GF) that he would paint the lines. The day of the grand opening came and went and the parking lot still had not been painted.

Jeremy sued Emily for not fulfilling her obligations under the contract. Emily defended claiming that Glen had agreed to do it.

c) Can Jeremy hold Emily liable for failing to paint the lines by the grand opening? Please explain why or why not based on the relevant law.

d) Can Jeremy hold Glen liable for failing to paint the lines by the grand opening? Please explain why or why not based on the relevant law.

Jeremy ordered local, organic corn from Pamela Feingold (PF). Pamela was supposed to deliver 200 bushels of corn but the delivery was actually about 197 bushels. Jeremy refused to pay anything since Pamela had not done what she was required to do under the contract.

a) Can Jeremy refuse to accept the corn and send it back? Please explain why or why not using the relevant law.

2

1. b) If Jeremy does send the corn back, does he need to pay Pamela anything? Please explain why or why not using the relevant law.
2. c) If Jeremy wants to keep the corn, does he need to pay Pamela anything? Please explain why or why not using the relevant law.
3. d) Does any of the above answers change if Jeremy has agreed to receive 200 bushels every month from Pamela? Please explain why or why not using the relevant law.

GCG not only owned the land the store is located on, it also owned the land across the street, which housed a strip mall. Most of the tenants in the strip mall were leaving when their leases were up in August, including Fish Bait Plus, the anchor tenant. GCG found a new buyer for theproperty, Tucker Williams (TW). GCG didn't tell Tucker about the tenants leaving when theirleases were up. When Tucker learned about this, two months after the closing, he sued GCG. Tucker wants GCG to take back the property and give him back his money.

1. a) What are the legal terms for the remedies that Tucker is seeking in this case.
2. b) Is Tucker likely to succeed in his case? Please explain why or why not using the relevant law.