In the case of Trendy Suit Company wholesalers and Fabric Manufacturing Company, it is evident that the two parties did agree in whatever terms they had stipulated. However, a misunderstanding between the occurred when the wholesaler indicated that it wills sale the suits for an additional $150. Similarly, the contract was bidding because the two parties did have a mutual assent as well as consideration.
There is a breach of contract in the case because one party, Fabric Manufacturing Company failed to fulfill the promise it made to the wholesaler- that of manufacturing 1000 suits when it was due. Since the manufacturer had agreed to provide the wholesaler with the suits at a price of $300 each, his failure to manufacture them constitutes a breach of the contract. Similarly, the wholesaler breached his contract with the retailers since he was unable to get the suits for his retailers.One remedy for the wholesaler is to see from the contract what was stipulated in case a contract is breached. Generally, there are three main remedies for such a case; seek for compensation for damages, injunction and or specific performance. The later is only possible if monetary compensation is deemed inadequate. In the case of compensatory remedy or claiming for damages, rather than the wholesaler push for the manufacturer to produce the suits, it can request the court to make the manufacturer compensate him for out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the breach.
According to American law of tort, this case falls under strict liability. The clerk of the furniture store where Blake went to buy the chair, can not be found to be at fault for instance negligence or tortuous intent be cause he knew of the metal chair to support individuals weighing over 350lb. however, he is responsible for the damages caused when Blake broke his arm. The problem here is although the clerk advised Blake to buy the metal chair, the damage suffered by the later is the born of contention.Warranty of merchantability, express warranty and that of fitness for a particular purpose are evident in the case. Although it is not written, the clerk assertion that the chair can accommodate weights over 350lb was a sort of express warranty for Mr. Blake. Warrant of merchantability arises when clerk's claims were in line with what the buyer-Blake expected the chair that supports his 400lb. lastly, warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is expressed when Blake bought the metal chair upon relying what the clerk said.
Two main remedies available for Blake are broadly categorized as injunction to help prevent future harms and damages to compensate for the harm is suffered by breaking his arm. Aggravated and exemplary damages opt to be sought by Blake; indeed he is shocked because he was made aware that the chair could support his weight. Additionally personal injury can be used by Blake in seeking legal action and include medical and other expenses.