Suppose that Dr. Reilly owns a medical clinic and he enters into a contract to buy 500 tablets of Gensol from Pharzime. Would Article 2 of the UCC cover the contract?
No, since Article 2 of the UCC only covers contracts for the lease of goods.
Yes.
No, since this type of contract would not meet the definition of a sale under Article 2 of the UCC.
No, since drugs would not meet the definition of a good under Article 2 of the UCC.
Suppose that Dr. Reilly owns a medical clinic and he enters into a contract to buy 500 tablets of Gensol from Pharzime. Part of the contract called for clinical staff from Pharzime to deliver the medication to the patients at Dr. Reilly's clinic. Which of the following is true?
None of these.
The UCC automatically does not cover the contract, since part of the contract is for a service.
Dr. Reilly would look to the predominant factor test to see whether the UCC would cover the contract.
The UCC automatically does cover the contract since part of the contract is for the sale of a good.
Suppose that Dr. Reilly owns a medical clinic and he enters into a contract to buy some tablets of Gensol from Pharzime. Since Dr. Reilly does not know how many tablets he will need, that contract states that Pharzime will supply the clinic with "as many tablets as they need." Decide.
This is a requirements contract.
This is an output contract.
This contract would be void since it does not have a specific quantity term.
This is an output contract and would be void since it does not have a specific quantity item.
Suppose that Dr. Reilly owns a medical clinic and he enters into a contract to buy 500 tablets of Gensol from Pharzime. The Gensol that he orders are 200 milligrams each. The Gensol that is delivered however are 100 milligrams each. Decide.
The goods are nonconforming because of the perfect tender rule.
The goods are nonconforming unless if the price per milligram comes out to be the same.
The goods are conforming because the clinic could substitute two 100 milligram pills for one 200 milligram pill.
The goods are conforming because of the perfect tender rule.
Suppose that Dr. Reilly owns a medical clinic and he enters into a contract to buy 500 tablets of Gensol from Pharzime. The Gensol that he orders are 200 milligrams each. The Gensol tablets that are delivered however are 100 milligrams each, shipped in boxes of 25 tablets. What are the options that the clinic has?
The clinic can accept some boxes of the Gensol, and reject some boxes of the Gensol.
The clinic can keep the shipment in its entirety.
Since they are nonconforming goods, the clinic may reject the entire shipment.
All of these.
Suppose that Dr. Reilly owns a medical clinic and he enters into a contract to buy 500 tablets of Gensol from Pharzime. The Gensol that he orders are 200 milligrams each. The Gensol tablets that are delivered however are 100 milligrams each, shipped in boxes of 25 tablets. Pharzime states that it will replace the Gensol with the correct size tablets. Decide.
Pharzime has the right to do this only if the time that the delivery is due has not expired and they can deliver the conforming tablets before that time.
Pharzime only has the right to do this if the clinic agrees.
Pharzime has the right to do this at any time.
Pharzime cannot do this under any circumstances.
Suppose that Dr. Reilly owns a medical clinic and he enters into a contract to buy 500 tablets of Gensol from Pharzime. The Gensol that he orders are 200 milligrams each. The Gensol that is delivered however are 100 milligrams each. The clinic uses the tablets for six months (giving patients double the number of pills). The clinic then decides to reject the unused portion of the pills. Decide.
The clinic can only reject the goods if they can show that they did not inspect the goods at the time of delivery.
The clinic can only reject the goods if they can show that they inspected the goods at the time of delivery.
The clinic likely will not be able to reject the goods since they used the pills.
The clinic likely can reject the goods since they are nonconforming.
Suppose that Dr. Reily owns a medical clinic and he enters into a contract to buy 500 tablets of Gensol from Pharzime. While negotiating the contract, Dr. Early made the statement that the drug was approved for epilepsy and it is quite safe. If the drug later turns out to be no safer than other epilepsy drugs, this statement:
created an express warranty.
creates no warranty.
created a puffery warranty.
created an implied warranty.
Suppose that Dr. Reily owns a medical clinic and he enters into a contract to buy 500 tablets of Gensol from Pharzime. While negotiating the contract, Dr. Early tells Dr. Reily that the Gensol lowers the seizure rate in all epilepsy patients. This statement:
creates no warranty.
created an implied warranty.
created an express warranty.
created a puffery warranty.
Suppose that Dr. Reily owns a medical clinic Dr. Early goes there to sell him some Gensol. During that time, Dr Reily states that he has heard that a common epilepsy test that Pharzime sells will also diagnose meningitis. Dr. Early sells him the test without saying anything. It later turns out that the test is ineffective in diagnosing meningitis. Decide:
Dr Early violated the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
Since Dr. Early did not say anything, he did not violate any warranties.
Dr. Early violated the implied warranty of merchantability.
Since the test worked properly for diagnosing epilepsy, Dr. Early did not violate any warranties.