Carter V. Tokai Financial Services, Inc. In the case, it follows Randy P. Carter and Tokai Financial services, Inc. where Tokai sued Carter for money that was not given under a lease agreement that the two had entered. It as stated that ARC made 4 of the rental payments before they defaulted on the obligation they had with Tokai. Following the ceasing of payment, Tokai the repossessed the equipment and sold it for $5,900. After the sale, Tokai brought a suit against in which they were awarded $56,675.74. Carter then appeals. His argument being that the two parties arrangement was to enter into an agreement that was based on security. So, because the agreement between didn’t fit within the definition of a secured transaction of the UCC, the
…show more content…
$3,500 is not the full amount of the installation because she had defaulted on paying Hilton the remaining balance of $902. The case was heard by magistrate that didn’t include a jury and because Pittsley didn’t provide evidence of damages so the only awarded her $250 with an additional $150 but also, they rewarded Hilton with the remain balance of $902. Pittsley appealed with the argument that UCC applies because she entered the contract with the sole purpose of obtaining carpet that was of good quality. On the other hand, it’s hard to tell if the contract is actually governed by the UCC because it contains both a good and a service which is the carpet and installation. The final ruling of the court the initial ruling was vacated because the magistrate didn’t consider the UCC when they made their …show more content…
During the farming of sunflowers, DJ Coleman’s principal, Clark Coleman mixed pre-emergent Mad Dog, a generic glyphosate broad-spectrum herbicide, and Spartan, a herbicide, prior to planting the sunflowers and then another tank mix that hot got from the Nufarm manufacturer. The tank mix didn’t get the approval from Nufarm to be mixed in the first place. DJ Coleman then implicated that one of the chemicals caused deformities in his 2007 sunflowers with other claims of liability, negligence along with failure to warn and other charges. Nufarm counter was to move to summary judgment because they claim that the label of the merchandise was stated clearly. However, Coleman says that that the Assert would act effectively and not damage plants when it is used. So, a breach of warranties has transpired because the sunflowers were damaged. Thus, a summary judgment was granted Coleman’s claim of products liability, negligence, failure to warn, breach of implied warranties, and statutory violation but Summary judgment is denied on the claim of breach of express warranties.
COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY V. BAYER
$3,500 is not the full amount of the installation because she had defaulted on paying Hilton the remaining balance of $902. The case was heard by magistrate that didn’t include a jury and because Pittsley didn’t provide evidence of damages so the only awarded her $250 with an additional $150 but also, they rewarded Hilton with the remain balance of $902. Pittsley appealed with the argument that UCC applies because she entered the contract with the sole purpose of obtaining carpet that was of good quality. On the other hand, it’s hard to tell if the contract is actually governed by the UCC because it contains both a good and a service which is the carpet and installation. The final ruling of the court the initial ruling was vacated because the magistrate didn’t consider the UCC when they made their …show more content…
During the farming of sunflowers, DJ Coleman’s principal, Clark Coleman mixed pre-emergent Mad Dog, a generic glyphosate broad-spectrum herbicide, and Spartan, a herbicide, prior to planting the sunflowers and then another tank mix that hot got from the Nufarm manufacturer. The tank mix didn’t get the approval from Nufarm to be mixed in the first place. DJ Coleman then implicated that one of the chemicals caused deformities in his 2007 sunflowers with other claims of liability, negligence along with failure to warn and other charges. Nufarm counter was to move to summary judgment because they claim that the label of the merchandise was stated clearly. However, Coleman says that that the Assert would act effectively and not damage plants when it is used. So, a breach of warranties has transpired because the sunflowers were damaged. Thus, a summary judgment was granted Coleman’s claim of products liability, negligence, failure to warn, breach of implied warranties, and statutory violation but Summary judgment is denied on the claim of breach of express warranties.
COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY V. BAYER