Premium Essay

Proc 5810

In:

Submitted By griffinwl
Words 337
Pages 2
Phillip Eugene Wendling, Appellee, v. Ted Puls and George Watson, Appellants

Procedural history
In the case of Wendling versus Puls and Watson, sued Puls and Watson for “breach of oral contract for the sale and purchase of cattle.” Wendling was awarded $14,755.02, in 1980 for this breach. This case was appealed and was affirmed by the appeals court.
Facts
This began on August 13, 1973, in Hutching, Kansas, when Wendling called Puls, a frequent buyer of cattle, to inform him that he had 103 heads of cattle for sale. Puls associated himself with Watson, a veterinarian, for financial assistance and the two drove to Wendling’s farm to inspect the cattle. Wendling and Puls agreed on 61 cents a pound for 98 heads and 59 cents a pound for the remaining five heads. Watson gave Wendling a $1000 check as down payment for 103 cattle. When it was time to deliver the cattle, no one showed up to receive them.
Issue
Were both parties aware of the contract?
Was the contract enforceable and were the damages calculated correctly?
Answer/Holding
Yes for each question. The court decided that Puls and Watson breached the contract by failing to take delivery of the cattle on the day specified and submitting final payment (see Kansas statute 84-2-703).

Reasoning
The court decided the way they did because, Wendling made multiple attempts to reach the buyers for delivery of the cattle, but Puls was either too busy or not available to take the call. Also, Wendling asked to be release from the contract in order to sale to another individual, Puls never gave him a signed release agreement. Wendling served the defendants with a written notice that listed the terms and conditions that was agreed upon by both parties. The court relied on part seven of article 2 of the UCC for this decision.
Disposition
The court found no errors and the judgment of the trail was affirmed.

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Purchasing Liability Officer

...Purchasing Officer's Personal Liability PROC 5810 Webster University Online 22 July 2013 Abstract If you research the internet, there are massive amounts of information on how the law handles purchasing agent actions when acting upon directions from their principal, but what happens when the agent acts alone, is the agent held responsible? What about signature authority or when the agent is careless and takes on actions that he/or she has no right to perform. Can a purchasing officer be held personally responsible for actions outside the knowledge of his principle? Purchasing officers (agent) are employees who buy supplies and materials for the companies they work for. They dicker over the smallest costs and make decisions for the company on materials and supplies that would benefit the company. Agents are also in charge of managing contracts and ensuring that they are completed in time. Purchase agents have to be educated with enough knowledge to make the right decisions on handling the purchasing, inventory levels, suppliers and the economics which will enable them to make the important decisions to help a company succeed. Contracts involve negotiating for bids, being technical in your knowledge and being able to access what products are needed is part of what makes the agent the expert and their field. Purchasing agents are expected to be able to meet with vendors and to be able to iron out the problems, so as not to cause harm to the company. The control...

Words: 3276 - Pages: 14

Premium Essay

Army

...miltrimas235Department of the Army Pamphlet 738–751 Logistics Management Functional Users Manual for the Army Maintenance Management System— Aviation (TAMMS-A) Headquarters Department of the Army Washington, DC 15 March 1999 UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY of CHANGE DA PAM 738–751 Functional Users Manual for the Army Maintenance Management System— Aviation (TAMMS-A) This revision-o o o Adds an Aircraft Transfer Decision Table (chap 1). Converts the removal/achievement codes back to failure codes (chap 1). Adds procedures for the Unit Level Logistics System-Aviation (chaps 1, 2, 3, and 4). Introduces DA Form 2408-14-1 (Uncorrected Fault Record Aircraft) (chap 2). DA Form 2408-14 (Uncorrected Fault Record) will no longer be used for aviation equipment. Incorporates Standard Army Maintenance System procedures (chap 3). Adds procedures for documentation of component repair at Aviation Intermediate Maintenance and depot levels of maintenance (chap 3). Adds phase maintenance and periodic inspection documentation procedures (chap 3). Adds information on migrating automated DA Form 2410 (Component Removal and Repair/Overhaul Record) data (chap 3). Changes DA Form 2410 and instructions. Therefore, the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command’s Guide/Workbook for the DA Form 2410, The Army Maintenance Management System Aviation (TAMMS-A), October 1992, is obsolete (chap 3). Adds instructions for DA Form 2408-16 (Aircraft Component Historical Record) and DA Form 2410 to track aircraft...

Words: 138921 - Pages: 556