UCC Contract Law Transamerica Oil Case Study

51), but less the amount of the down payment tendered by the defendants ($1,000.00)." ("Wendling v. Puls," 2011) This is significant, because it is showing how the court is affirming the position of the plaintiff. As they lost substantial amounts: of money and were placed at a tremendous disadvantage from the negligent actions of the defendants.

Disposition:

Like what was stated previously, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court. This based upon the fact that an actual contract existed and that the defendants were aware of their legal obligations. When they refused to accept delivery of the cattle is when they breached this agreement. Under the law, they are subject to monetary penalties that were based upon the method of calculation used by the lower court. As, the actions of the defendants are considered to be negligent resulting in monetary losses that plaintiff endured. This is because, they had no resale agreement and there was an expressed contract in place. When the defendants did not live up their obligations, is when the plaintiff had numerous financial losses. This is because of the fact that: he wanted to follow the provisions of the agreement, but did not have the flexibility to make any kind of adjustments. This led directly to the losses he received from the actions of the defendants. As a result, the court felt that the decision was within the scope of the law. As, they are accounting for the kinds of: damages and the total amounts of lost time (based upon case precedent).

Bibliography

Wendling v. Puls. (2011). Find…