QUESTION 5 – 6 Points Dexco Basement Remodelers (“Dexco”) en…

QUESTION 5 – 6 Points Dexco Basement Remodelers (“Dexco”) entered into a contract with Kate to waterproof her basement.  Kate had numerous discussions with Dexco regarding the issues she had with her basement.  Kate explained the extent of water damage and problems that she experienced every time it rained.  Kate explained to Dexco that she had certain budget constraints and instructed Dexco that she could not afford more than $15,000 for the basement remodel.  Dexco told Kate that it could complete the basement in two weeks, and the contract entered into between the parties provided that Dexco would be paid on a time and materials basis (which means that Kate would be charged hourly rates for the work done by Dexco’s workers plus the costs of the material – there was no fixed price for the work).  The contract did not mention Kate’s limit of $15,000.  Kate decided to visit her mother while Dexco was remodeling her basement.  When Kate returned from visiting her mother she was upset to find that Dexco had failed to follow the agreed design for the basement and there appeared to be water leaking in from the corner.  Dexco emailed Kate a bill for her work in the amount of  $22,000.   Kate immediately called Dexco and complained about the bill.  Kate believed that Dexco understood that she could not afford more than $15,000.  Kate further argued that she was upset with the remodel and that there still appeared to be water leaking into the basement.  Dexco claimed that the contract did not include a limit of $15,000 and that the work was more involved than it had previously believed.  Dexco refused to reduce its invoice below $22,000.  Kate remains furious at the high cost of the project and has exchanged over ten emails with Dexco voicing her complaints.  After weeks of arguing back and forth, Kate mailed Dexco a check for $11,000 with a letter stating the following:  “You knew that I could only afford $15,000!  You failed to give me the basement we agreed to, and I have had to spend an additional $4,000 to fix the leak you failed to repair.  I am enclosing my check for $11,000 which is all that I will pay for the basement work you did.  You won’t get a penny more from me!”  Dexco deposited the check and seven months later sued Kate to recover the remaining amount owed of $11,000 (the contract amount of $22,000 less the $11,000 received).    REQUIRED (6 Points):  Will Dexco prevail?  Discuss. 

QUESTION 2 – 6 POINTS Annie is the owner of Good Bike Compan…

QUESTION 2 – 6 POINTS Annie is the owner of Good Bike Company, a state-wide retailer of new and used bicycles and accessories.   Good Bike Company is looking to stock its inventory of bikes.  Annie, on behalf of Good Bike Company, called a sales representative at BMC Bicycles, a national manufacturer of bikes.   Annie had a long conversation with Sang, the sales representative at BMC.  Annie and Sang (on behalf of BMC) agreed to the purchase of 25 BMC bikes a price equal to the manufacturer’s listed price less a 15% discount for purchasing more than 20 bikes.   After the call, Annie filled out a purchase order reflecting the conversation.  The purchase order identified the purchase by Good Bike Company of 25 BMC Bikes at a total price of $31,000 (which was the price agreed to with Sang).   Annie signed the purchase order on behalf of Good Bike Company and sent it to BMC,  which received the purchase order on November 1.    On December 1, Annie had not heard anything from BMC and had not yet received the bikes.  Annie reached out to BMC and was told that BMC would not go through with the sale because they were upset that Sang agreed to such a large order at such a low price.  BMC said to Annie during that conversation:  “Anyway, we did not sign anything regarding this sale so there is no contract between us.” REQUIRED (6 Points): Is BMC correct in asserting the statute of frauds as a defense because it did not sign anything in writing? Explain your answer.

QUESTION 1 – 8 POINTS  Samson owned a kitchen supply store i…

QUESTION 1 – 8 POINTS  Samson owned a kitchen supply store in Madison, Wisconsin under the name “Samson Kitchen Supply”. Samson wanted to sell her business, and negotiated an agreement for the sale of her business to Joel. During the negotiations over the sale of the assets, Joel expressed his concern that after closing on the sale of the business that Samson would start up a competing kitchen supply store and steal Joel’s customers (because of their loyalty to Samson). Therefore, the sale contract that Samson and Joel both signed and agreed to included the following provision: “Samson agrees that she shall not operate or have any ownership interest in a store that sells kitchen supplies, restaurant supplies, food, kitchen equipment, or kitchen related accessories for a period of 8 years from the date of this agreement within a 50 mile radius of the current location of Samson Kitchen Supply’s store in Madison, Wisconsin, nor will she solicit any of Samson Kitchen Supply’s current customers.” In order to determine the price that she should sell her store for, Samson obtained a market survey that she could present to any prospective buyer. The market survey determined that 80% of Samson’s Kitchen Supply’s clients came from within a 40 mile radius of the store. Joel and Samson agreed on a purchase price for the store of $800,000, which was determined as follows: $400,000 in inventory; $200,000 in equipment, and $200,000 in goodwill and intangibles. Joel and Samson closed (consummated and concluded) the sale of the kitchen supply store on March 30, 2022. On March 1, 2023, Joel learned that Samson was in the process of opening up a new kitchen supply store just 20 miles from the location of Samson’s Kitchen Supply. Joel is obviously very upset about this and believes that Samson’s conduct is a violation of the sale agreement. Joel has filed a lawsuit to try and stop Samson from operating her new store in violation of the sale agreement. REQUIRED (8 Points): The court in the action commenced by Joel has determined that Samson’s conduct is a violation of the sale agreement and has ordered her to stop operating her new store. In separately lettered or numbered paragraphs discuss the reasons why the court enforced Samson’s promise not to open a competing kitchen supply store.