Business Laws & Business Correspondence

Running head: BUSINESS LAW 2
BUSINESS LAW 2
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
BUSINESS LAW 2
1) In the present case, Nelson Motors wrote a letter to Oskem offering him to buy a Chevrolet
car at the price of $14500. However, the letter contains a provision that the offer needs to be
accepted before July 1. However, Nelson Motors sold the car by not hearing anything from
Oskem regarding the offer on June 15th. However, Oskem accepted the offer and informed the
same to Nelson Motors on June 25 by sending a tender of $14500.
a) The Uniform Civil Code, under Section 2-205 states that an offer must be in writing and
signed by the offeror and it must be open up to a certain period of time and it must be made
to a merchant (Messelu, 2016). Further Section 2-206 states that an offer for a contract can be
made m and can further be accepted through any form to constitute a valid contract. Thereby,
in this case, the letter from Nelson motors can be regarded as a mode to communicate the
contract to Oskem and his acceptance and payment of full amount regarding the offer
constitute a valid acceptance.
b) In the present case there exist a valid contract, as the period of acceptance was open to
Oskem till Julu 1st and he accepted the same on June 25. Further, the letter did not state any
specific modes of acceptance. Thereby, according to section 2-202(3) of the Uniform Civil
Code, the offer is said to be accepted through the conduct of the parties, further proper
communication of acceptance by Oskem, made the contract valid (Viscasillas, 2016).
c) In this case, though there is no meeting of minds between the parties (Baltimore & Ohio R.
Co. v. the United States), but, as the period of acceptance of the offer is open, it can be said to
be a valid contract by the communication of acceptance of the offer by Oskem. Furthermore,
Nelson Motors did not communicate about the revocation of the offer to Oskem (Byrne v
Van Tienhoven). Therefore, it can be said that Nelson Company breached the terms of the
contract.

2
BUSINESS LAW 2
2) In the present case, the title of the goods did not incurred by the buyer as there did not
exist any pre-contractual clause that the title will be transferred once the goods have been
shipped from the seller's premises (Hillman, 2017). In the case of a shipment contract, the
seller's duty is to send the goods to the buyer. Moreover, under section 2 of the UCC, the
seller's obligation is to load the goods at the ship, after that the buyer is responsible to bear all
the risk and cost related to the shipment. In this case, Paulsen's responsibility ended at the
time he shipped a thousand widgets. Furthermore, the contract is frustrated by supervening
impossibility, which is the destruction of those widgets due to fire without any control of
Paulsen. This further constitutes frustration due to the destruction of the subject matter
Therefore, there is no contract existed. Similarly, no contractual obligation existed due to the
destruction of the subject matter.
a) Therefore, the title of the widgets would have been passed to Malloy if there was a
pre-existing clause in the contract between Malloy and Paulsen and in cases of FOB
contract, the burden of risk or loss has to bear by the buyer because the seller’s duty is
over after the consignment is loaded.
b) In the present case, Paulsen's burden is over once he loaded the widgets in the speedy
freight lines. Therefore, in cases of any loss after the shipment, it has to bear by
Malloy.
c) In the recent case, the contract was frustrated due to sudden fire spread which caused
the destruction of the thousand widgets which was the consideration of this shipment.
Therefore, applying the doctrine of frustration of contract, no party is responsible to
bear the loss due to the non-existence of any contract.
3) (a) In the present case, firstly, Warren made a promissory note to George. Therefore, this
endorsement can be termed as a blank endorsement of a promissory note.