1. Why did the court rule in favor of Cargill?
The Court ruled in favor of Cargill because the Debtor did not receive the pig iron within the meaning of Section 2-705(2) (a) of the U.C.C. The pig iron that was in transit, Cargill found out the Debtor was insolvent. Also the court concluded that New Orleans was not the final destination of the pig iron because the Debtor did not intend for the pig iron to remain in New Orleans. The Debtor never came into possession of the pig iron.
2. What would have happened if Cargill was unable to stop the goods in transit?
The Court would not agree with Cargill and they would be responsible for the cost. There would be a breach in their contract and they would be wrong under Article 2.
1. Is the “good” here the water, the glass, or both? Why?
The good is the glass for it was defective when the patron began to drive from it. The water was good and fit to drink but that doesn’t make it unfit to drink. Again the restaurant had no control over that defective glass.
2. Why did the court conclude that an implied warranty existed?
The court concluded that the subject matter of a contract is presently true or will be true, especially finding of a legal right or duty by inference from facts or circumstances. The court couldn’t find any complaints against the restaurant, let alone their utensils. The water that was served to the plaintiff was fit for consumption, but if the container that held the water was defective, then the water wasn’t fit for consumption. Therefore, making this whole claim under this theory viable.
1. What was the reason Andersen signed promissory notes in favor of Great Lakes Nursery?
Andersen signed the promissory note in return for Great Lakes’ promise to deliver 65,000 trees for Andersen’s nursery business.
2. What did Great Lakes do with these notes?
In return for a loan, Great Lakes transferred the notes to First Investment.
3. Why does the court allow...