Question

Webster, Inc., dealt in automobile accessories at wholesale. Although it manufactured a few items in its own factory, among them windshield wipers, Webster purchased most of its inventory from a large number of other manufacturers. In January, Webster entered into a written contract to sell Hunter 2,000 windshield wipers for $1,900, delivery to be made June 1. In April, Webster’s factory burned to the ground and Webster failed to make delivery on June 1. Hunter, forced to buy windshield wipers elsewhere at a higher price, is now trying to recover damages from Webster.

REQUIRED:

Explain whether Hunter will be successful in its claim? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Answer: YES Explanation case Summary Walebster Ine formed a contract with PEF Hunter compony promised to Produce 2000 wipers to Hunter for $ 1900 , delivery date was on June 1 In April webster company was attected by a fire accident and could not deliver the promised goods to Hunter Company on time. Hitta Hunter company was compented to purchase the wipers from other vendor. Conclusion. This case is not performance impossibility by webster Ine. Even though webster ane may have produced the wipers in his unit, according to the contract it was not required. This case is not commercial Impractically because of the non-ocentance of succeding events (the factory being in existance) was not a basic assem phon aguud by both the porites while forming a contract. Hunter compony could have purchased the wipers from other makers or vendors, this could have fulfilled the objective. Hence Hunter company claim will be sucessful.