Foodmart Inc. Scenario
BUS/415
July 19, 2011
Aaron Towns

Foodmart Inc. Scenarios
Scenario One: Foodmart Contracted with Masterpiece Constructions. In an effort to enhance customer experience and satisfaction Foodmart Inc. retained Masterpiece Construction to renovate its Main Street location. In the end Foodmart Inc. was not pleased with the work Masterpiece Construction provided and later found out that the work was sub-contracted out to a third party vendor. This in return resulted in Foodmart suing masterpiece for a breach of contract.
Who wins? In the case of Foodmart vs. Masterpiece, Foodmart wins. Although, Masterpiece argued commercial impracticability, the first element of the commercial impracticability states “Something unexpected must have occurred"(Cohen Seglias Pallace Greenhall & Fermac PC, N.D.) for a company to plead impracticability. The third element states and the unexpected occurrence must have rendered performance commercially impracticable” (Cohen Seglias Pallace Greenhall & Fermac PC, N.D.). By Masterpiece Construction accepting and scheduling each new contract it voids the term unexpected. They were aware of everything that came along with each contract they accepted before accepting the responsibility. Therefore Masterpiece Construction should be held accountable to their actions which in return results in Foodmart Inc. being granted their injunction.
Scenario Two: Jeremy Atwater Purchases a Car During the summer Jeremy Atwater earned enough money to place a down payment of $200 on a car from Smooth Sales Used Cars. He signed a contract which sealed the deal and drove his car home. Although, Jeremy was excited to purchase his new care he unfortunately was not able to keep up with the payments and decided to try and return his car to Smooth Sales Used Cars.
Possible Outcomes / Legal and Equitable Remedies
1.