1)Ray and Rayetta were on a camping vacation in Maine.
They had reservations for themselves and their car on a ferry from Bar Harbor, Maine to Nova Scotia. Because they had their two mountain bikes mounted upright on a roof rack on their car, they had to use a special line including motor homes, vans and other high vehicles. Upon loading onto the ferry, all of these high profile vehicles used the rightmost of the six parallel lanes on the auto deck of the ferry. When the drivers returned to their cars upon reaching Nova Scotia, they were directed off the ferry by ferry employees. The driver of the motor home immediately in front of their car had not returned by the time all of the cars from other lanes had exited. After waiting for another 10 minutes, one of the ferry employees motioned Ray and Rayetta to turn to the left into the next lane rather than wait for the motor home to move.
Ray and Rayetta followed the employee’s hand signals, but unfortunately their bikes s! truck a low clearance pipe and the frames of both bikes were destroyed. Discuss the issues and outcome of their lawsuit against the ferry company.;THIS IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT — CONTRACT OF CARRIAGEThe main issue in controversy is: Whether or not the ferry company is liable for the damages on the bikes owned by Ray and Rayetta, which the latter loaded on board the ferry. The facts in the case would show that Ray and Rayetta were guided by one of the ferry employees when they tried to move past the vehicle in front of their automobile. In maneuvering their car, the couple relied on the hand signals motioned by the ferry employee. The ferry employee, however, failed to notice the low clearance pipe.
As a result, the bikes, which were mounted on top of the couple’s car, hit the pipe. The frames of both bikes were destroyed. By mere oversight, the ferry employee failed to take proper precautions when he motioned to Ray and Rayetta to make a turn. Since the ferry employee was performing within the scope his duties, the negligence of the ferry employee can be imputed to the ferry company in view of the employer-employee relationship between the two. Accordingly, the ferry company is vicariously liable for the destroyed bikes because its employee, in the exercise of its functions, failed to exercise utmost diligence when it assisted Ray and Rayetta in maneuvering their automobile.Being engaged in the business of carrying goods and transporting passengers, and offering their services to the public, the ferry company is bound to exercise extraordinary diligence as far as human care and foresight can provide. Failure on their part to do so raises the presumption of negligence, which will then give rise to a breach of contract of carriage.
3) Bob runs a factory that makes ladies’ clothing. Bob needs a certain type of silk sold by Alice. Bob calls Alice and tells her that he needs 1,000 yards of silk. Alice tells Bob that she can not guarantee anything but that she will do her best. Alice tells Bob that she will sell him the silk for a 10% markup on what she has to pay. Bob says that is fine. Later, Bob is having financial problems and decides he doesn’t want the silk. Unfortunately, Alice calls the next day and tells Bob that she has located 900 yards of silk and that she would like payment.
Bob wants out of the deal. He says that there was a lack of consideration and that he never even knew how much he would have to pay. What would a judge likely rule?;The judge would likely rule in favor of Alice.
Under the circumstances, Bob has accepted Alice’s offer to sell to him the silk for a marked up price. It is apparent that the parties have agreed as to the thing, which is subject matter of the contract, and as to its price or consideration. Bob cannot aver that there was no consideration. It is obvious that Bob acquiesced to Alice’s offer to sell the silk at a marked price. Although no specific price was fixed, and that Bob never knew how much he would have to pay, this would not vitiate the contract because the price is still considered certain when placed in reference to the silk to be purchased by Alice.
The price of the silk purchased by Alice would then be marked up by 10%, which will then be the selling price with respect to Bob. Hence, the price is certain, and was clearly agreed upon by the parties. Clearly, there was consent on the part of Bob to buy the silk from Alice. This was clearly manifested by the meeting of Alice’s offer to sell. Accordingly, there was a meeting of the minds as to the thing, and as to its price, hence, a perfected contract. Under the law, a contract is binding agreement between parties. The idea of contract law is based on the principle “Pacta Sunt Servanda,” which means a party is bound to what he has agreed upon with another. In this case, Bob called Alice and told her that he needs silk.
Alice, in turn, offered to sell to him the silk at a certain price, to which Bob agreed. Accordingly, Bob is bound by his agreement with Alice even if he is undergoing financial problems. The agreement is supposed to be the law between Alice and Bob with respect to this particular transaction.;Works Cited;Slaughter, Jim. “Contracts.” Forman Rossabi Black, PA. 6 April 2008;http://www.
frb- law.com/contract.htm;;United Nations Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (“Hamburg Rules”). 31 March 1978. Admiralty and Maritime Law Guide. 6 April 2008;http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/conven/hamburgrules1978.html#top;;