To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library





5. On August 1, Wells, a wholesaler of office supplies, contracted by telephone to sell 50 cases of typewriter ribbons to Ronson, a business equipment retailer, at a total price of $450. On August 15, Wells telephoned Ronson and told him that because of a shortage of materials, the price which Wells had to pay for typewriter ribbons had increased drastically. Wells said if he delivered the ribbons at the price of $450, he would lose a great deal of money. He asked Ronson to consent to a higher price, suggesting that Ronson pass the increase along to his customers. After further discussion, Ronson and Wells agreed to change the price of the order $450 to $650. On August 18, Ronson succeeded in purchasing fifty cases of typewriter ribbons from another supplier for $500. On September 1, Wells delivered fifty cases of typewriter ribbons to Ronson together with a bill for $650. Ronson rejected the delivery.

In an action by Wells against Ronson for breach of contract, which of the following would be Ronson’s most effective argument in defense?

(A) Ronson’s demand for more money was unconscionable, since typewriter ribbons were available at a lower price.

(B) The August 15 agreement increasing the price was not in writing.

(C) Ronson’s promise to pay $650 was unsupported by consideration.

(D) An increase in Well’s cost resulting from a shortage of materials was forseeable on August 1.

6. On March 22, by a written memorandum signed by both parties, Varsey agreed to sell and Pantel agreed to buy a described parcel of realty. The contract called for closing of title on May 30, and fixed all other terms, but did not indicate the price to be paid. On May 30, Pantel tendered $60,000 cash, but Varsey refused to convey the realty. Pantel subsequently instituted an action against Varsey for specific performance of the contract, and offered evidence that $60,000 was the fair market value of the realty, both on March 22 and on May 30. In defense Varsey asserted that the memorandum failed to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. Pantel’s suit against Varsey should

(A) succeed, if Pantel and Varsey are both in the business of buying and selling real estate.

(B) succeed, because under the Uniform Commercial Code a contract which is silent as to price is presumed to call for payment of fair market value.

(C) fail, because the written contract did not fix the price to be paid.

(D) fail, unless the evidence establishes that the parties orally agreed that the price to be paid was the fair market value of the realty.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following