When it is claimed that a contract is too indefinite to be enforced, a court will do its best
to find the intent of the parties and thereby reach the conclusion that the contract is not
too indefinite.
Bob Corporation entered into a contract to sell parts to Zeck. The contract provided that
the goods would be shipped “FOB Bob’s warehouse.” Bob shipped parts to Zeck that
were stolen from the carrier. When Zeck checked the invoice, Zeck discovered that Bob
had sent Model #20B instead of Model #20A, which the contract required. Whose loss?
Why?
An offer to buy or sell goods may be accepted in any manner that is reasonable under
the circumstances.
Pamela was the agent in charge of distribution and collections for the Coble Dairy
Products Cooperative. Thrower operated a grocery store and purchased dairy products
from Coble. Pamela made false invoice sheets, showing delivery to Thrower of greater
quantities than Thrower actually had ordered or received. Pamela collected from
Thrower on the basis of these increased amounts, and then kept for herself the
difference between the increased amounts and the amounts that should have been
charged. When Thrower learned of this, he sued Coble for the excess payments he had
made. Coble denied that Pamela was its agent in making excess collections. Will
Thrower win?
The person on whom a demand for assurance is made must reply in writing for the
assurance to be deemed “adequate.”
Factual incapacity is imposed because of the class or group to which a person belongs.
Agreements not to compete are always void.