The business law holds that the full amount of the contract will only be awarded to the contractor at the end of the contract after the work is credibly certified. In this case the contactor’s poor work is not certified by Haeuser who declines to pay him. From this, Haeuser is definitely going to win the case. Unless Wallace decides to repeat the whole construction under hid own expenses and his work certified this round, he cannot be paid as he claims (Benjamins, 2009).
Yes, the MSGB should wait until the date that both parties signed for the boxing tournament. If Ali fails to appear or participate in the boxing, they will successfully sue him for dishonoring or acting contrary to the agreement which both of them signed (Hansmann, 1991).
Since microform signed a contract to complete the installations by a specified date which they did not meet so according to the law. They are liable for the damages they have caused the telephone company in all forms including material and financial loss. So indeed Microform
materially fell foul of the contract and they should cater for the damages (Davies, 2003).
Yes. The liquidation clause is enforceable since Morse failed to provide services by ignoring the signal which clearly indicated that the burglar and system was being tempered with since the system was only connected to his central location so he is liable for the damages (Olazaba, 2004).
Specific performance is not an appropriate remedy in this case which the Claiborne should seek but instead the right remedy was to seek the terms and conditions of the contract to see if Avon had gone contrary to the contact agreement. Otherwise any firm has aright to enter and exit any collaboration with another company provided the act is with the signed agreement
No, article 2 deals with sales and claims only by the debtors and the creditors of which only goods are involved and a contact agreement has to be signed for any claims. But here, the context is different from trade so the article does not apply (Tague, 2001).
No, this situation does not apply to the provisions of article two since article two only has provisions concerning transactions of goods and does not apply to transactions n the form of unconditional contract like this (Tague, 2001).
No, the lease is not unconscionable since the contract of the lease clearly stated that he will pay the company even if the truck is totally destroyed. Ignorance and negligence is never a defense in according to law (Benjamins, 2009).
Of course Gordon wins. Simply because the terms of the contact are that the price would only change if more steel is used than expected but since the work had not even started, the Coronies had no option of withdrawing as it will be contrary to the agreement. Withdrawing might mean that it is too late for Gordon to get another subcontractor therefore can lose he contract (Benjamins, 2009).