Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Warranties In The Box, James J. White
Warranties In The Box, James J. White
Articles
Thousands of times each day, a buyer opens a box that contains a new computer or other electronic device. There he finds written material including an express "Limited Warranty." Sometimes the box has come by FedEx directly from the manufacturer; other times the buyer has carried it home from a retail merchant. Despite the fact that it is standard practice for the manufacturer to include a limited written express warranty on the sale of such products,' and despite the fact that both the manufacturer and the buyer believe that warranty to be legally enforceable, the law on its enforceability is …
Freeing The Tortious Soul Of Express Warranty Law, James J. White
Freeing The Tortious Soul Of Express Warranty Law, James J. White
Articles
I suspect that most American lawyers and law students regard express warranty as neither more nor less than a term in a contract, a term that is subject to conventional contract rules on formation, interpretation, and remedy. Assume, for example, that a buyer sends a purchase order to a seller and the purchase order specifies the delivery of 300 tons of "prime Thomas cold rolled steel." The acknowledgment also describes the goods to be sold as "prime Thomas cold rolled steel." Every American lawyer would agree that there is a contract to deliver such steel and furthermore would conclude that …
Form Contracts Under Revised Article 2 (Symposium: Consumer Protection And The Uniform Commercial Code), James J. White
Form Contracts Under Revised Article 2 (Symposium: Consumer Protection And The Uniform Commercial Code), James J. White
Articles
The current draft of section 2-206 in Revised Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") entitled "Consumer Contract: Standard Form"1 presents a unique and threatening challenge to the drafters of consumer form contracts. In earlier drafts, one part of the section applied to both to commercial contracts and consumer contracts. It required that "one manifest assent" to any form contract, commercial or consumer, in order for it to be binding.2 Bowing to commercial opposition in the most recent version, the drafters have omitted all reference to commercial contracts. As the section stands, it applies only to consumer contracts.
The Decline Of The Contract Market Damage Model, James J. White
The Decline Of The Contract Market Damage Model, James J. White
Articles
In law school every American lawyer learns that the conventional measure of damages for breach of a sales contract is the difference between the contract price and the market price. Even before these rules were embodied in the Uniform Sales Act and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), they were a staple of Anglo-American common law. They remain the rules with which a court would determine damage liability not only for the sale of goods, but also for the sale of real estate and securities.
Trade Competition - Effect Of Motive, Herbert F. Goodrich
Trade Competition - Effect Of Motive, Herbert F. Goodrich
Articles
Does the motive with which one enters into what is ostensibly trade competition with a business rival have any significance in the law? Motive is used, following Judge Smith's careful limitation of the term, to signify the feeling which makes the actor desire to obtain the result aimed at. A conclusion that motive is immaterial in this connection can be sustained by formal logic. A man has a "right" to engage in business, even though his rival be injured thereby. One may exercise a legal right, regardless of his motives in doing so. Therefore, business competition, if the methods be …
Sales: Liability For The Presence Of Mice And Other Uncommon Things In Food, John B. Waite
Sales: Liability For The Presence Of Mice And Other Uncommon Things In Food, John B. Waite
Articles
A group of recent decisions presents a somewhat farcical conformity with Montesquieu's thesis that "law" may vary with time and geography. It strikingly illustrates, also, the importance of the particular theory of liability upon which a suit is predicated. The unusual similarity in detail of the operative facts of these cases lends peculiar emphasis to the difference in the judgments rendered.
The Liability Of The Common Carrier As Determined By The Recent Decisions Of The United States Supreme Court, Edwin C. Goddard
The Liability Of The Common Carrier As Determined By The Recent Decisions Of The United States Supreme Court, Edwin C. Goddard
Articles
An understanding of the present day liability of the common carrier under conditions as they exist, especially in interstate shipments, is best reached by an historical journey from the early decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States to the end of the year just past.
Limitation As To The Amount Of Liability For Loss Of Goods By Carriers, Edwin C. Goddard
Limitation As To The Amount Of Liability For Loss Of Goods By Carriers, Edwin C. Goddard
Articles
A carload of automobiles was shipped by express, under an express receipt limiting recovery to $50, unless a greater value was named and a greater carrying charge paid. The shipper knew of this stipulation, and deliberately chose the restricted liability so as to secure the lower rate. On a suit for loss of the automobiles, recovery was limited to $50. Geo. N. Pierce Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 189 Fed. 561, commented on in 10 MICH. L. REB. 317. The United States Supreme Court has just affirmed this decision, 35 Sup. Ct. 351.
The Effect Of The Carmack Amendment To The Hepburn Act Upon Limitation By Common Carriers Of The Amount Of Their Liability, Edwin C. Goddard
The Effect Of The Carmack Amendment To The Hepburn Act Upon Limitation By Common Carriers Of The Amount Of Their Liability, Edwin C. Goddard
Articles
Two cases, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 1O, 1913, may be considered together. They are developments of the cases reviewed in 11 MICH. L. Rev. 460. Plaintiff shipped two boxes and a barrel of "household goods" under an agreement that the goods, in case of loss, should be valued at $5 per hundred-weight. One box, weighing not over 200 pounds and actually worth $75, was lost. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed a judgment against the carrier for the full value. 91 Ark. 97, 121 S. W. 932, 134 A. S. R. 56. On …