5.1 Liquidated Damages:
• Due to the contract being sucked away in the aftermaths of Hurricane Llewelyn, it is unknown whether the contract had a liquidated damage clause. (2-718)
• If it did, we would be required to determine if the liquidated damage clause caused a penalty or not on the breacher
5.2 Expectation
• The goal of the expectation damage would be to put MJC where they would have been had NSH performed. To do that you must take the difference of the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and contract price (8,000*12= 96,000) together with any incidental and consequential damages, but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller’s breach. (§2-713)
5.3 Specific Performance:
• MJC has the right to demand …show more content…
MJC did attempt to write a contract, but NSH never signed the written contract, nor addressed the one that was sucked into the hurricane. Hermes can argue in defense of NSH that there was no valid contract between MJC and NSH and therefore no enforceable breach. (§2-201(1), (2))
6.2 Impossibility
• To prevent MJC from stating that NSH had breached their contract by non-delivery of the handbags NSH would have had to notify MJC that the products they were going to deliver were ruined by the Hurricane and that it would be a year before they would be able to produce again. Which they did not do. (§2-615)
7. Conclusion:
• If a court decides that MJC and NSH had a valid contract than Hermes can expect a lawsuit by MJC against NSH. There are a variety of ways that MJC can seek claim relief against NSH. Hermes best defense for NSH is the Statute of Frauds.
Claim 3: The Mall
1. Applicable Law
• The contract between Maller and Saks is a lease and therefore not a moveable good. Common Law applies.
2. Enforceability
2.1 Offer
• Maller, Inc. offered Saks 10,000 sq. ft. of space in their Mall of Newstate for an unmentioned amount for the period of five years (§24)
2.2 Acceptance
• Saks accepted Maller’s offer when after legal negotiations signed the five-year lease in 2014. (§59)
2.3
• Due to the contract being sucked away in the aftermaths of Hurricane Llewelyn, it is unknown whether the contract had a liquidated damage clause. (2-718)
• If it did, we would be required to determine if the liquidated damage clause caused a penalty or not on the breacher
5.2 Expectation
• The goal of the expectation damage would be to put MJC where they would have been had NSH performed. To do that you must take the difference of the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and contract price (8,000*12= 96,000) together with any incidental and consequential damages, but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller’s breach. (§2-713)
5.3 Specific Performance:
• MJC has the right to demand …show more content…
MJC did attempt to write a contract, but NSH never signed the written contract, nor addressed the one that was sucked into the hurricane. Hermes can argue in defense of NSH that there was no valid contract between MJC and NSH and therefore no enforceable breach. (§2-201(1), (2))
6.2 Impossibility
• To prevent MJC from stating that NSH had breached their contract by non-delivery of the handbags NSH would have had to notify MJC that the products they were going to deliver were ruined by the Hurricane and that it would be a year before they would be able to produce again. Which they did not do. (§2-615)
7. Conclusion:
• If a court decides that MJC and NSH had a valid contract than Hermes can expect a lawsuit by MJC against NSH. There are a variety of ways that MJC can seek claim relief against NSH. Hermes best defense for NSH is the Statute of Frauds.
Claim 3: The Mall
1. Applicable Law
• The contract between Maller and Saks is a lease and therefore not a moveable good. Common Law applies.
2. Enforceability
2.1 Offer
• Maller, Inc. offered Saks 10,000 sq. ft. of space in their Mall of Newstate for an unmentioned amount for the period of five years (§24)
2.2 Acceptance
• Saks accepted Maller’s offer when after legal negotiations signed the five-year lease in 2014. (§59)
2.3