On March 1st, a construction company and a contractor agreed in writing that the contractor would purchase a steam roller for $45,000. Three weeks before the deal was set to close, the contractor found a seller of essentially the same steam roller who was willing to sell it for $40,000. Thus, the contractor bought that steam roller and refused to pay the construction company. To offload the steam roller, the construction company, in a commercially reasonable manner and in good faith, set up a public auction for the steam roller, selling it for $35,000. On March 1st, the market price of the construction company’s steam roller was $42,000. If the construction company wins in court on a breach of contract claim against the contractor, what is the court likely to award the company?

Susan purchases a water heater from a large retailer. The sales contract includes a clause stating that the water heater is sold “with all faults.” The water heater works initially but begins leaking after six months. Susan contacts the manufacturer, who refuses to repair it, citing the “with all faults” language. Susan sues, arguing that the water heater was not merchantable. Does Susan have a viable claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability?

A trier of fact may consider any relevant extrinsic evidence in determining the meaning of an ambiguous term in a written contract for the sale of real estate.

In Everbank v. Marini (starting on page 545 of the book), Caroline Marini based her argument on Rst. 174 instead of Rst. 175 because:

While perusing a garage sale being held by Bertrand, a furniture salesman, Arias comes across a beautiful dining room table priced at $500. After negotiating the price down to $300, Arias and Bertrand sign the following written agreement:”Arias agrees to buy from Bertrand, and Bertrand agrees to sell to Arias, Bertrand’s dining room table for $300.”Shortly after signing the agreement, Arias notices for the first time a minor scratch on the table, so she asks Bertrand to accept $275 instead of $300 for the table. Bertrand agrees.Later that day when Arias returns with cash and a truck to transport the table, Bertrand tells Arias that he has changed his mind on the price and insists on $300. Is Arias in breach of contract if she does not pay Bertrand $300?

The Ford Maverick, featuring remarkable fuel efficiency and an affordable price, is the most popular hybrid truck in the U.S. Its U.S. sales are booming, and the average retail markup on such sales is 30%. Sjostrom Motors, Inc., a franchised Ford dealer in the U.S., contracted with Tree Hugger to sell him a new Maverick for $35,000 cash, the sale to be consummated after delivery to Sjostrom of the truck, which Sjostrom ordered from Ford specifically for Tree Hugger. When the truck arrived at Sjostrom’s dealership, Tree Hugger repudiated the contract. Sjostrom at once sold the Maverick for $35,000 cash to Meathead, for whom Sjostrom had also ordered from Ford a Maverick identical to the one for Tree Hugger. In an action against Tree Hugger for breach of contract, Sjostrom will probably recover:

As the first step in having a new building built, Alejandro obtained a bid from a demolition company of $25,000 to tear down the existing building on his property. Having only limited cash available, Alejandro asked his rich aunt for a $50,000 loan. After reviewing the plans for the project, Aunt, in a signed writing, promised to make a $50,000 interest free loan to Alejandro repayable over ten years in equal monthly installments. Alejandro promptly accepted the bid to demolish the building, and the demolition company demolished the existing building. Aunt thereafter refused to make the loan. Despite diligent efforts, Alejandro was unable to obtain a loan from any other source. Alejandro then sues Aunt. Which of the following statements is the most correct?

A farmer needed to offload a very small parcel of land for $495. Fred, his neighbor, expressed interest in buying it. Fred met the farmer on the land to get a tour. “I will take it,” said Fred. “Great news!” said the farmer. “In 363 days from today, after my final harvest, let’s meet so that you can give me the $495 in cash, and I can officially transfer the title over to you.” The two shook hands but never put any of this deal in writing. Three hundred sixty-three days later, Fred called the farmer to get him the $495, but the farmer refused to go through with the deal. If Fred brings a breach of contract lawsuit against the farmer, does the farmer have a viable statute of frauds defense?

A medical supply company, MedSafe, enters into a contract to sell 100,000 units of surgical masks to a hospital chain, HealthFirst, for a total price of $200,000. Due to a sudden increase in demand for medical supplies, the market price for surgical masks skyrockets shortly after the contract is signed. When MedSafe realizes it can sell the masks for a much higher price elsewhere, it notifies HealthFirst that it is cancelling the contract. In response, HealthFirst attempts to find another supplier but discovers that the only available option is selling the same quantity of masks for $800,000, reflecting the new market price. Ultimately, HealthFirst decides not to purchase the masks at the higher price but sues MedSafe for breach of contract. If HealthFirst prevails in court, what amount of damages is the court likely to award?

A chef agrees to buy a rare spice from a supplier for $10,000, which he needs to use in a cooking contest. The chef pays the supplier $10,000 but the supplier refuses to supply the spice. Unfortunately, the chef cannot find a replacement supplier except at a price of $12,000 which he cannot afford to pay. As a result, he misses the contest, which has a grand prize of $50,000. The chef has won the contest the last five years and was viewed as the heavy favorite to win again this year. The chef sues the supplier for breach of contract and wins. How much is the chef likely to be awarded for damages?