Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law 9th Edition by Arnold Goldman ,William Sigismond

تمرين 6

Kroll was owner of Supreme Men's Wear, a men's clothing store located in an exclusive neighborhood of a large city. He contracted to purchase 100 men's suits from an LV International Clothing Manufacturer's representative who called on Kroll at his clothing store. The rep produced a sample suit that impressed Kroll because the label on the sample suit showed that the suit was exclusively tailored, meaning a premium manufacturer's product and assurance that the suit was 100 percent pure virgin wool, had 90 percent hand stitching, and a pure silk lining. The rep promised that the suits Kroll ordered would be like the sample. When the shipment of suits arrived, Kroll accepted them without an inspection, relying on the promise of the rep. The suits went on sale at Supreme Men's Wear, with each suit selling for $2,500. However, when sales got underway, customer after customer returned his suit complaining that the label on the suit was a fake and wanted a refund. In support of each customer's demand was a certificate in writing by a member of the CTDA (Custom Tailors and Designers Association) stating that each of the suits presented for inspection was of inferior quality and not the quality as stated on the suit's label. Kroll immediately (within 24 hours) notified LV International of his refusal to make further payments on the unpaid invoices. LV International did not offer any explanation to Kroll, but filed suit in court to collect payment for the unpaid invoices. Kroll filed a legal counterclaim for breach of warranty under the UCC claiming that the suits did not conform to the sample. Kroll also brought to the attention of the court that the UCC's requirement of high ethical standards required between seller and buyer was violated in that there was a lack of good faith on the part of LV International based on its failure to act in a commercially reasonable manner of fair dealing.
Questions
1. Do the facts in this case support Kroll's theory of breach of warranty? Explain.
2. Would Kroll's ethical claim be a basis for allowing him to revoke his acceptance of the shipment of suits? Explain.
3. After answering questions 1 and 2, are there other facts that you think a judge or jury would need to make a strong argument for either LV International Clothing or Kroll?