Reference no: EM131378678
In the balancing act that is the law, judges and attorneys must often weave their way through a series of overlapping and inconsistent legal dimensions before arriving at a solution to their problems.
Unfortunately, even that does not always work. Such was the case in a multidimensional lawsuit entitled Tubelite Co., Inc. v. Original Sign Studio. The lawsuit concerns two agreements between Tubelite, the seller, and Original Sign Studio, the buyer. The first agreement was an application for credit, in which Original Sign agreed to pay for all materials shipped by Tubelite and to remit an 18 percent finance charge for overdue payments.
In the second agreement, Tubelite agreed to be Original Sign's exclusive supplier. The terms of the contract were reduced to writing in a letter written by an agent of Original Sign but never signed by anyone from Tubelite. The agreement stated that Tubelite would supply Original Sign with all the material that it requested but that it would bill Original Sign only for the materials that the sign company actually used and then, in exchange for being Original Sign's exclusive supplier, it would charge a discounted rate of somewhere between 10 and 25 percent. Tubelite also agreed to install shelving at Original Sign's warehouse for proper storing of the materials. Tubelite shipped the materials that Original requested and installed the shelving as per the agreement. So far so good. Then the trouble started. Tubelite billed Original for all the material it shipped, not just the material used.
Moreover, the bill that Tubelite sent to Original ignored the discounts promised under agreement number two. Original ignored the bill as written by Tubelite and, instead, paid only for the materials it had used at a 25 percent discount rate. Tubelite insisted that, under agreement one, Original still owed money for the unused portion of the material. In addition, since that payment was now late, Tubelite tacked on its 18 percent penalty (remember the "finance charge"). Original argued that agreement two, the discount agreement, superseded, agreement one, the credit agreement. Tubelite argued that agreement one, the credit application, was still in effect because agreement two, was never signed by anyone from Tubelite.
Therefore, the agreement failed to meet Statute of Frauds requirements (the statute that tells us what contracts must be written), and was unenforceable. Besides, Tubelite added, agreement number two was too vague to be enforced, even if the writing were okay. It should be clear that, if any dispute is multidimensional, this one is. Look at all the questions in these two contacts that remain. What law applies here? Common law or the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)? Which contract rules? Did Original err in not getting a Tubelite agent to sign the agreement? Is the writing really too vague or is Tubelite pulling a fast one? These and other similar questions will be addressed in the Unit called Contract Law.
[See Tubelite Co., Inc. v. Original Sign Studio, 176 Ohio App.3d 241 (Tenth District).]
Opening Case Questions
1. Would Tubelite Co., Inc. v. Original Sign Studio be a civil lawsuit or a criminal action? Explain.
2. What law will the court apply in this case to answer the questions noted above? Will the court use common law or the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)? Explain.
3. What is the legal status of a contract that is supposed to be in writing under the law, but is never reduced to writing? Explain.
4. What legal exceptions exist to the rule that says that certain contracts must be in writing? Explain.
5. When an agent fails to perform one of the many duties imposed on agents by law, what are the legal consequences for that agent? Explain.
Definition of a worker marginal revenue product
: Which of the following responses most accurately completes the definition of a worker's "Marginal Revenue Product (MRP)"? The MRP represents the change in the: Caterpillar Industries produces bulldozers, large earth-movers, and dump trucks for the Am..
|
Was forest city negligent in failing to keep the sidewalk
: Was Forest City negligent in failing to keep the sidewalk clear of ice at all times that winter? What test would be used to judge Forest City's conduct? Explain.
|
What were the main features of qin administration
: What were the main features of Qin administration. Also, How did the Chinese economy change from the Tang to the Northern Song to the Southern Song
|
Should wightmans own negligence be a complete bar
: Michelle Wightman was driving toward a railroad crossing at which the gates were down and the lights flashing.- Should Wightman's own negligence be a complete bar to the plaintiff's recovery of damages in this case? Explain.
|
Is writing really too vague or is tubelite pulling fast one
: Did Original err in not getting a Tubelite agent to sign the agreement? Is the writing really too vague or is Tubelite pulling a fast one? These and other similar questions will be addressed in the Unit called Contract Law.
|
Where did christianity develop deep roots in asia
: What led to European Christianity becoming so deeply embedded into European society and culture? Where did Christianity develop deep roots in Asia and Africa before 1500 C.E? Why?
|
The appropriate index of prices increased
: Assume that between 1990 and 2000 the money GDP of an economy increased from $3 trillion to $8 trillion and that the appropriate index of prices increased from 100 to 200. Which of the following expresses GDP for 1990 in terms of 2000 prices? Which o..
|
Describe the process and point out any elements of waste
: Pick one of their processes (For example: taking customer orders at McDonalds). Describe this process and point out any elements of waste. Describe how you would improve this process to eliminate the waste you identified.
|
Which is not a factor that influences the span of management
: Which of the following is NOT a factor that influences the span of management? The primary purpose of staff authority is to provide line personnel with advice and counseling.
|