Mayker, Inc. and Oylco contracted for Oylco to be the exclusive provider of Mayker?s fuel oil for 3 months. The stated price was subject to increases of up to a total of 10% if the market price increased. The market price rose 25%, and Mayker tripled its normal order. Oylco seeks to avoid performance. Oylco?s best argument in support of its position is that;10.;A. The contract was unconscionable.;B. The quantity was not definite and certain enough.;C. There was no meeting of the minds.;D. Mayker ordered amounts of oil unreasonably greater than its normal requirements.;Razor Corp. agreed to purchase 100 mixers from Home Suppliers, Inc. Home is a wholesaler of small home appliances, and Razor is an appliance retailer. The contract required Home to ship the mixers to Razor by common carrier, ?FOB Home Suppliers, Inc. Loading Dock.? Under Article 2 of the UCC;12.;A. Title to the mixers passes to Razor at the time they are delivered to the carrier, even if the goods are nonconforming.;B. Razor would have the right to reject any shipment if Home fails to notify Razor that the goods have been shipped.;C. Razor must inspect the mixers at the time of delivery or waive any defects and the right to sue for breach of contract.;D. Home must pay the freight expense associated with the shipment of the mixers to Razor.;Suggs Company agreed to sell certain goods to Barr Corporation pursuant to a written contract. No shipment or delivery date was specified in the contract. Based on these facts;13.;A. The contract fails for indefiniteness.;B. The time for shipment must be agreed upon.;C. The time for shipment is within a reasonable time.;D. The time for shipment is within 3 months.
Paper#35321 | Written in 18-Jul-2015Price : $37