Question #1,
On January 15th, Sweet Charles ("SC", a pie baking company owned and operated by Charles) came to an oral agreement with Tarts-R-Us ("TRU", a bakery owned and operated by Ursula) to supply the bakery with one hundred special heart-shaped pies at a price of $10 each, with delivery occurring a week before Valentine's Day. On January 16th, TRU sent a "Purchase Order" form to SC, which stated: "100 heart-shaped pies to be delivered by SC to TRU on or before February 7th, as per agreement of January 15th. [signed] Ursula." This letter was received by SC on January 20th. Consider the following situations separately. For each, write a separate answer discussing the "wronged party's" claim [i.e. on what grounds can they claim a remedy], and possible defenses to that claim.
A. SC makes no reply to TRU's order form. On February 4th, SC receives another order from a different bakery for 1000 heart-shaped pies (SC's full capacity), for a price of $13 each. That day, Charles calls TRU and informs them that SC will be unable to delivery any pies. On February 5th, TRU purchases 100 heart-shaped pies at the current market price of $15.
B. On January 21st, SC sends a written order acknowledgement, signed by Charles. The pies are ready early, and on the morning of February 6th, SC's truck delivers 100 pies to TRU. Unfortunately, there was a mixup and instead of 100 heart-shaped pies, 100 circular pies were delivered. Ursula calls SC, and tells Charles of the error. Looking over at his shelves, Charles sees the 100 heart-shaped pies that were supposed to go to TRU. Charles apologizes for the error, and tells Ursula that he will personally deliver the 100 heart-shaped pies by 8 a.m. tomorrow. However, Ursula [who had heard from another baker across town of an $8 heart-shaped pie special] told Charles that she rejected his shipment; would refuse any more pies from SC; and would look elsewhere for her pies. The next day, February 7th, Charles picked up the circular pies, and was forced to sell his 100 heart-shaped pies at the current market price of $6 per pie.
Question #2
Mark's laptop had been ruined recently, and so he needed to buy another one. A local store, CheapGeeks, advertized a sale on laptops, and so Mark went to the store on March 1. At the store, Mark saw a display model (it was a model CPac100) on sale for $400. This model had all of the specifications Mark needed - including that it could run for at least three hours without needing to be recharged, and so he went to the counter and told the clerk, Geraldine, that he wanted to buy a CPac100. Geraldine checked inventory and saw that they did not have any in stock, but she told Mark that they could order one, and that it could be available in two days if he ordered one now. Geraldine also told Mark that CheapGeeks also includes thirty minutes of free setup services along with free delivery on new computers. Mark said that would be fine, and so Geraldine printed a written contract for sale of the CPac100, plus the 30 minutes of setup services and delivery, for $400. The written contract also informed Mark that there was only a five (5) day warranty on the computer, and properly disclaimed implied warranties (Do not discuss any warranty issues). Both Mark and Geraldine then signed the written contract. Mark paid nothing at this point.
On March 3, the computer arrived, and so Geraldine herself delivered it that afternoon to Mark's apartment. When she arrived, she took the computer out of its box, plugged it in, and then did 30 minutes of setup services for Mark. At the end of the 30 minutes, Geraldine showed Mark that the laptop was working, and so Mark gave her a check for the price of the laptop. Geraldine then left. Mark had to leave immediately, and so he turned the laptop off.
Over the next few days, Mark used the computer for short periods, checking email and a few other things. At no point did was the computer on more than one hour. However, on the morning of March 10, Mark had to write a report, and had it on for over one hour. Then, the computer screen flashed, and the computer was off. Mark tried to turn it back on, but it would not restart despite many attempts. The next day, he tried to turn it back on, but it again would not restart. He called CheapGeeks, and Geraldine told him he could bring it in, and she would look at it. When he brought it in on March 12, it did restart, and so they left it on. After a little more than one hour, the screen flashed, the computer was off, and it again would not restart. Geraldine had read about something similar, and determined (correctly) that the problem was that the CPac100 ran too hot, and after use of one hour or more, would damage some of the solder on the motherboard. The computer would then shut down. After letting the motherboard cool for at least 48 hours, it could restart, but the problem would reappear - i.e. it would turn itself off - whenever it was used for one hour or more. Mark demanded his money back, but Geraldine pointed out that his warranty had already expired, and refused his request. Mark then sued CheapGeeks for a full refund.
What body of law (Common Law or UCC) applies here? What should CheapGeeks argue? What should Mark argue? Who should win?