Help! Law question??
Asked by chrissy
A wholesaler in NY agreed to sell 2,000 5-kilogram cases of walnut pieces to a buyer in Florida. The price was $1.10 with delivery F.O.B. New York. The goods were shipped by common carrier in accordance with the buyer's instructions. The goods were subject to moisture and freezing during transit, and the buyer, on inspection of the goods, found them unfit but accepted an agreement of 66 cents a kilogram, while the goods were still in the hands of the carrier. In the meantime, the carrier found a buyer willing to purchase the 10,000 kilograms of walnuts at 88 cents a kilogram. However, the carrier was unable to complete the sale because of the buyer's actions. The Florida merchant brought an action against the Toronto wholesaler and the carrier for his loss, calculated at 44 cents a kilogram. Identify issues and defenses. Here's my thought: The Florida merchant accepted the goods, even though they were unfit for his purposes. According to the Sale of Goods Act Rule 4, the Florida merchant is responsible for this loss, even though the goods were in the carrier's position. Is this correct? Any ideas?

Best Answer:
The first contract is void - as the goods were not as described in the original agreement. A new contract is made - price 66 cents/kilo, and is valid. the offer of 88cents is irrelevant, because the carrier does not own the goods - so can't sell them. The action is the merchant vs the carrier for ruining the goods in transit (duty of care) - and the value of the action is 44cents/kilo. The carrier will argue mitigation at 22 cents/kilo because of the late offer - and a judge will decide. Hope this helps.

Very good answer.
Answered by lady w/3cats and one fine hat

A pretty simple and clear cut case. Under English law the carrier was liable, but under American law the state weather beauro was responsible as it failed to inform all concerned of drop in teperature. However, in a US supreme court ruling it was held that the manufacturer of the transit vehcle the goods were carried in was to blame as it failed to protect the goods.
Answered by advocate172000