Critical Legal Thinking Case

Assignment Three
Florida State College at Jacksonville

Business Law and Ethics

BUL 3130

October 5, 2010

Shelby B Guerrier
 Abstract

Under the UCC Section 2-509, the party that receives goods, then has a

situation that the goods are damaged or considered a loss, the party controlling the

goods is responsible under risk of loss. Also in Section 2-319 defines that authority

belongs to both the seller and buyer to allocate the risk of loss between and how it

is applied according to them. In this factual scenario presents a conflict between

buyer and seller, in this Cabinet Co. is both buyer and seller since he bought the

casters to manufacture rolling cabinets. An analysis of the law and facts conclude

that Frank and Cabinet Co. is responsible for checking goods as soon as they

arrive at their warehouse before the pay for them. Since the goods were in the

warehouse of Cabinet Co., they’re responsible under Article 2 of the state of those

items. Nevertheless, Cabinet Co. can still collect money for damages because

under an implied warranty, Cabinet Co. has the right to have high expectation s of

quality of products or goods that they order and purchase.

 Critical Legal Thinking Case Assignment

Analysis of the principles of law and key facts determine that Frank and

Cabinet Co. is responsible for checking goods as soon as they arrive at their

warehouse before the pay for them based on the Article 2 of the Uniform

Commercial Code. Yet, Cabinet Co. is also initialed to damages under the rules of

implied warranty and merchantability.

Areas and Principles of Law

The area of law that is applicable to this factual scenario is under Article 2 of the

Uniform Commercial Code. This code deals with transactions and regulates the

sale of goods by both merchants and non-merchants. Section 2-509, risk of loss is

placed on both parties involved in the transaction. Section 2-319 gives the

authority to both parties on how the rules and regulations are to be established

under the risk of loss banner. Under the implied warranty and merchantability, the

manufacturer of the casters has to make sure that their product is in a functional

state and the receiver of these products has the right to think that the items that are

being delivers are of a sound quality also.

 Key Facts

Under Article 2 of the UCC merchants or manufacturers are responsible for the

goods that are in their possession at the time of loss. In this case the goods that

Cabinet Co. were already defective. Since Frank neglect to check the boxes before

the account firm paid for casters, Cabinets took a loss in sales and in monies to

replace the defective goods. Also since under implied warranty, Cabinet co. can

sue for the defected casters and the money it took to replaced them because a buyer

has the right to expect a product that is of high quality and meets the

manufacturing needs.

Analysis

Cabinet Co., under Article 2 of the UCC is considered responsible for the items

that have arrived at their warehouse. In this instance, Frank should have checked

the package and had plenty of time to do so since the package came in early. The

fact that they went ahead and paid for items that they didn’t check on is bad

business ethics. Also, this particular instance Cabinet Co. is not solely responsible.

Under the implied warranty and merchantability, they can also receive money in

damages incurred by replacing faulty equipment and for the failure of the merchant

to provide a sound product.

 Conclusion

According to Article 2 of the UCC, and the rules under implied warranty and

merchantability, Cabinet Co. and Frank had the responsibility to check on the

delivery to make sure that the package was reasonably fit for their own purposes

before making payment to the manufacturer on the caster. Cabinet Co. also can

seek damages because the manufacturer was obligated to make sure their product

was sound enough for shipping and should be reimbursed for the money spent to

replace the defected casters.

Works Cited
Anders, J. P., Koch, E. M., & LLP, W. a. (2005, January). Counter Point. Retrieved October 9, 2010, from
http://www.whiteandwilliams.com:
http://www.whiteandwilliams.com/CM/Articles/CounterpointArticle3.pdf

Rumbaugh, C. E. (2004). The New (and Improved) Article 2to the UCC. Retrieved October 7, 2010, from
http://www.rumbaugh.net: http://www.rumbaugh.net/docs/UCC-newFinal_NCMA_Article.pdf

The American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
(2005). Retrieved October 7, 2010, from Legal Information Institute:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-509.html