Part 4- Sales, Chapter 22: Remedies for Breach of Sales Contracts, Doc 5

Problem Summaries and Legal Analyses 1. Lobianco v. Property Protection, Inc.   Issue: Can the disclaimer in the alarm system contract effectively eliminate liability for consequential damages, such as the theft of jewelry? Analysis: Under UCC §2-719(3), a contract can limit or exclude consequential damages unless it is unconscionable. However, disclaimers cannot protect against gross negligence or a failure of the core purpose of the agreement. If the standby battery was non-functional and this failure caused the system to be ineffective, the disclaimer might be voided, and Property Protection could be liable for consequential damages. 2. Parzek v. New England Log Homes   Issue: Is Parzek’s lawsuit for insect infestation barred by the UCC's fouryear statute of limitations under §2-725? Analysis: The statute begins to run when the breach occurs, typically at the time of delivery. However, if there is a warranty of future performance (e.g., logs guaranteed to be decay and insect-free), the statute runs from the time the defect is or should have been discovered. Parzek’s claim may survive if the court finds that New England Log Homes provided such a future warranty. 3. Murrey & Sons v. Madsen   Issue: Was Murrey justified in stopping production and not attempting to mitigate damages by selling the tables? Analysis: Under UCC §2-704, a seller may finish manufacturing or cease production based on what minimizes loss. However, Murrey should mitigate damages by reselling the goods if feasible. If the pool tables could have been sold, even as “seconds,” Murrey might not be justified in dismantling them without making such an attempt. 4. Dubrow Estate v. Furniture Store   Issue: Is the furniture store entitled to recover the full purchase price from Dubrow’s estate? Analysis: UCC §2-709 allows sellers to recover the purchase price if the goods cannot be resold for a reasonable price or if they are specially manufactured. If the rugs and furniture were customized and cannot be easily resold, the store might be entitled to the full price. Otherwise, the store should attempt to resell and claim damages only for the difference. 5. Cohn v. Fisher   Issue: Is Cohn entitled to recover the difference between the contract price and the resale price plus incidental damages? Analysis: UCC §2-706 allows sellers to recover the difference between the resale price and the contract price, along with incidental damages. Since Fisher breached, and Cohn resold in a commercially reasonable manner, he is entitled to the $1,650 difference and $29.50 incidental expenses. 6. Baker v. Burlington Coat Factory   Issue: Is Baker entitled to a cash refund despite Burlington’s no-cashrefunds policy? Analysis: UCC §2-314 imposes an implied warranty of merchantability, breached when goods are unfit for ordinary use. If the coat was defective, Baker is entitled to remedies, including a refund. Burlington’s policy cannot negate statutory rights, especially if not clearly communicated before the sale. 7. Barr v. Crow’s Nest Yacht Sales   Issue: What damages can Barr recover for breach of warranty? Analysis: Under UCC §§2-714 and 2-715, Barr can recover the difference between the yacht’s value as warranted and its actual value (50% reduction in value due to prior sinking) plus incidental and consequential damages, including costs for repairs and loss of use. 8. Migerobe, Inc. v. Certina USA   Issue: Can Migerobe recover lost profits on corollary sales as consequential damages? Analysis: UCC §2-715(2) allows recovery of consequential damages if they were foreseeable at the time of contract formation. If Certina knew the watches were for a "doorbuster" sale to increase corollary sales, Migerobe may recover lost profits on those sales as foreseeable damages. 9. Schweber v. Rallye Motors   Issue: Can Schweber obtain specific performance to compel Rallye Motors to sell him the specific Rolls-Royce? Analysis: UCC §2-716 permits specific performance when goods are unique and cover is impractical. Given the car's unique features, specific performance may be an appropriate remedy, especially if monetary damages cannot fully compensate Schweber. Conclusion Each scenario demonstrates how the UCC provides remedies tailored to specific types of breaches, emphasizing mitigation, foreseeability, and good faith. Courts analyze contracts, warranties, and remedies within the framework of these UCC provisions.