- 分享
- 0
- 人气
- 0
- 主题
- 5
- 帖子
- 1317
- UID
- 111993
- 积分
- 243
- 阅读权限
- 14
- 注册时间
- 2007-11-26
- 最后登录
- 2013-4-19
- 在线时间
- 1168 小时
|
Case Study （contract law）
MAC manufactures and installs insulated window-frame units. Installation comprises about 15% of MAC’s total price for the units. Wong, a commercial builder, saw a MAC advertisement and mailed an order for 30 window frames, at $100 per frame, for a total order of $3000. He also wrote on his order, “Must have your guarantee of installation within 15 days due to construction deadlines.”
MAC immediately sent Wong an “Acknowledgment of Order,” listing the windows and price as per Wong’s order, and including a $200 shipping charge. Shipping costs are customarily borne by the buyer of window-frame units. At the bottom of the MAC form was printed the following: “Installation guaranteed within 60 days.” Also printed in bold and conspicuous type was the following: “All warranties of merchantability and fitness are hereby expressly disclaimed.” Finally, the form stated, “Contract of Sale Subject to Terms Contained Herein.”
MAC installed the windows 55 days after the order was placed and Wong incurred several delay-related expenses. MAC \later submitted a bill for the full amount shown on the “Acknowledgment of Order” form. Wong refused to pay the $200 shipping charges. He also discovered that because of a manufacturing defect, the glass in the windows did not fit snugly, permitting rain to leak through.
MAC sued Wong for the full price shown on the “Acknowledgment of Order” form. Wong counterclaimed against MAC for damages resulting from the delayed installation and unmerchantable quality of the windows.
How should the court rule on MAC’s and Wong’s actins? Discuss
这是我law assignment 的问题，老师讲里面最少有三个issues，可是我看了那么多次还是不懂到底要怎样做。。。请问谁可以跟我讲到底它的 issues 是什么？？？我已经做到要哭了。。。
[ 本帖最后由 Princeton 于 2009-2-22 04:48 PM 编辑 ] |
|
楼主: JbTopz
IP卡
狗仔卡
发表于 2009-2-21 11:04 PM
显身卡
