Why Choose Us?
0% AI Guarantee
Human-written only.
24/7 Support
Anytime, anywhere.
Plagiarism Free
100% Original.
Expert Tutors
Masters & PhDs.
100% Confidential
Your privacy matters.
On-Time Delivery
Never miss a deadline.
Week 3 - ConAgra v Barlett Ptn
Week 3 - ConAgra v Barlett Ptn. Discussion - week 3 Group 3
From AGRICULTURAL LAW (AEC_388_400_F2020)
3434 unread replies.3535 replies.
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.
Expert Solution
In this case, ConAgra and Barlett formed a contract that entitled four different corn shipments with the price being determined 20 cents under the market price. Due to hail, Barlett informed ConAgra that he would not be able to produce as much corn due to crop loss. They sought corn to replace what they could not grow. Race delivered corn that was "wet" and not grown by himself. The contract stated that the corn needed to be delivered in good quality and grown in the United States. Since the corn was "wet," contained fungal bacteria, and was not of good quality, Race did not hold up his end of the contract. ConAgra won the case.
Archived Solution
You have full access to this solution. To save a copy with all formatting and attachments, use the button below.
For ready-to-submit work, please order a fresh solution below.
