Discuss the concept of consideration.
The plaintiff, Donald Laird has a bachelor of science degree in animal science, had
previously been employed at the university’s swine research center, had managed a feed
mill, had been employed as a herdsman for Hog Breeders, Incorporated, had worked for
five years for Armour & Company at its feeder pig operations, and was a branch
manager of the Scribner Co-op, Inc. for 14 years. Laird’s assistant manager while at the
Co-op was Gary Ruwe. When Laird quit the Co-op, Ruwe became the manager. Later,
Laird went to Co-op to purchase some feed ingredients for his hogs. In speaking with
Ruwe, Laird learned that the Co-op grain bin was not operating properly and therefore
the corn was not drying properly. If the corn does not dry properly, it can collect mold
and insects. Laird said he would take 1300 bushels of corn if Ruwe could pull the corn
out of the middle of the grain bin. The corn was delivered to Laird where he noticed
some damaged corn and an odor that indicated that the corn may have mold. Laird did
not reject the shipment, however. Laird then began to feed the corn to his hogs. The
boars began to develop pneumonia, began vomiting, and would not eat regularly. When
it was time for the sows to farrow, the sows had an abnormally high number of
miscarriages and stillborns. The ultimate conclusion was that the corn delivered was
tainted with vomitoxins, a toxic substance that made the corn unmarketable as feed.
Laird sued the Co-op for breach of the implied warranties of fitness for a particular
purpose and merchantability. In order to recover under the warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose what does Laird have to prove? What is the implied warranty of
merchantability? Does Laird have a successful claim with this warranty?