1. Goods versus Services.
A. ISSUE: Discuss fully whether the contract between the Palermos and Colorado Carpet was primarily for the sale of goods or the sale of serv¬ices.
The contract between the Palermos and Colorado Carpet was primarily for the sale of services because the Palermos orally agreed to the purchase and installation of the carpet. After Colorado Carpet had begun installing the carpet, Mrs. Palermo was dissatisfied. Therefore, the installation of the carpet is part of the service in the contract.
B. RESOLUTION: [Colorado Carpet Installation, Inc. v. Palermo, 668 P.2d 1384 (Colo. 1983)] How did the court answer the questions? What did the court decide?
The court decided the contract was a sale of services and was enforceable because the agreement consisted of a …show more content…
Therefore, moving to London allowed her to receive financially support from her husband.
B. RESOLUTION: [Vuylsteke v. Broan, 172 Or.App. 74, 17 P.3d 1072 (2001)] How did the court answer the questions? What did the court decide?
The court decided that Vuylsteke took reasonable steps to mitigate her damages and awarded her the annual salary of $72,000 and $2,012 for relocation costs to move to London. Therefore, a total of $74,012, which is consequential damages.
C. EXPLANATION: Do you agree with the court? Why or why not? Can you change any facts to give a different result?
Yes, I agree with the court because Vuylsteke attempted to mitigate her damages by trying to find employment for more than her annual salary of $25,000 and moved to London, so her husband can financially support her. In addition, I could change any facts to give a different result. For example, if Vuylsteke did not take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages, Vuylsteke would not be awarded the consequential
A. ISSUE: Discuss fully whether the contract between the Palermos and Colorado Carpet was primarily for the sale of goods or the sale of serv¬ices.
The contract between the Palermos and Colorado Carpet was primarily for the sale of services because the Palermos orally agreed to the purchase and installation of the carpet. After Colorado Carpet had begun installing the carpet, Mrs. Palermo was dissatisfied. Therefore, the installation of the carpet is part of the service in the contract.
B. RESOLUTION: [Colorado Carpet Installation, Inc. v. Palermo, 668 P.2d 1384 (Colo. 1983)] How did the court answer the questions? What did the court decide?
The court decided the contract was a sale of services and was enforceable because the agreement consisted of a …show more content…
Therefore, moving to London allowed her to receive financially support from her husband.
B. RESOLUTION: [Vuylsteke v. Broan, 172 Or.App. 74, 17 P.3d 1072 (2001)] How did the court answer the questions? What did the court decide?
The court decided that Vuylsteke took reasonable steps to mitigate her damages and awarded her the annual salary of $72,000 and $2,012 for relocation costs to move to London. Therefore, a total of $74,012, which is consequential damages.
C. EXPLANATION: Do you agree with the court? Why or why not? Can you change any facts to give a different result?
Yes, I agree with the court because Vuylsteke attempted to mitigate her damages by trying to find employment for more than her annual salary of $25,000 and moved to London, so her husband can financially support her. In addition, I could change any facts to give a different result. For example, if Vuylsteke did not take reasonable steps to mitigate her damages, Vuylsteke would not be awarded the consequential