In Axelson v.McEvoy-Willis,McEvoy hired Axelson to build special equipment for oil rigs,after forms went back and forth,Axelson built equipment for McEvoy,which suddenly cancelled the contract.Axelson sued for damages;McEvoy noted the contract stated it could cancel at any time.The appeals court held that McEvoy:
A) was not in breach;the final contract agreed to by the parties clearly stated it could be cancelled at any time
B) was not in breach;the contract was for as many as McEvoy "needed" so once it had enough,it could cancel
C) was not in breach;Axelson tried to refer to terms of earlier contracts that were part of the negotiations,not the final terms
D) was in breach because the final contract specified a six-month cancellation notice,which was not provided
E) none of the other choices
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q93: In Axelson v.McEvoy-Willis,McEvoy hired Axelson to build
Q215: Under the common law, an acceptance cannot
Q216: Which of the following is not true,
Q220: Lisa mailed an offer to sell cotton
Q224: According the UCC's statute of frauds all:
A)
Q232: Under the common law, contract modifications must
Q234: Suppose two parties to a contract that
Q237: Under UCC Article 2, when there is
Q239: Balls, Inc. sells all baseballs needed by
Q243: In Griffith v. Clear Lakes Trout, Griffith
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents