Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help

Help in Homework
trustpilot ratings
google ratings


Homework answers / question archive / If you have signed up to do this case brief for homework, please start out the thread: Give us the key facts, issue, rule, holding, and even briefer reasoning from your brief to start the discussion

If you have signed up to do this case brief for homework, please start out the thread: Give us the key facts, issue, rule, holding, and even briefer reasoning from your brief to start the discussion

Law

If you have signed up to do this case brief for homework, please start out the thread: Give us the key facts, issue, rule, holding, and even briefer reasoning from your brief to start the discussion.

DO NOT simply copy or attach your brief. Condense the brief into its essentials to teach your classmates.

If another classmate has already posted, feel free to respond with alternative understanding of the case and try to work it out. That’s the BEST learning! I will chime in with clarification if necessary.

pur-new-sol

Purchase A New Answer

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE

Answer Preview

In Rayle Tech v DEKALB SWINE BREEDER INC.  Rayle Tech is suing DEKALB because they received infected swine. The swine were infected with PRRS,  a syndrome that affects pigs reproductively and their respiratory system.  DEKALB. 

Rayle Tech was a farm who wanted to utilize DEKALB for purchase of pigs. Prior to signing the contract Ralye Tech had a discussion with the salesman at DEKALB. During this conversation Rayle Tech brings up that they decided against another farm because that farm was possibly infected with PRRS. The salesman at DEKALB agreed that that was a good reason.

HOWEVER, prior to the contact DEKALB had several cases of antibodies test positive for PRRS within their farms. 2 farms complained of an outbreak because of DEKALB pigs, and 8/12 farms for DEKALB started showing signs of PRRS. 

The contract signed between the two parties displayed many clauses. one clause stated that DEKALB takes no responsibility for infected pigs and that the purchaser should test pigs prior to delivery. They also state that they make no assumptions that they will receive healthy pigs. 

One of the most important clauses was the Merger clause in which explains that no verbal communication shall override any information within the original document. 

After receiving 19 pigs Rayle Tech purchased another batch of pigs the next month. In that next month Rayle Tech tested positive fir PRRS.

It should also be noted that Rayle Tech tested their farm prior to receiving pigs from DEKALB and tested negative for PRRS. They also did NOT test the pigs prior to delivery once purchased. 

The holding was that the contract clearly stated no fault on DEKALB for infected pigs. It also states that no oral communication shall override the initial contract. Because of the bounding of the contract