CA Bar 過去問分析 Feb 2021 Q2 (Contracts)

CA Barの過去問を解いて答案を公開しています！
概ね1000 words 前後の「1時間以内に書ける」答案で、合格点に繋がるように、 IRAC (CRAC)の形式を忠実に守っています。

問題文

Bright Earth Solutions (“Bright”), an agricultural services business that employed 10 people and had over 100 clients, purchased a new commercial tractor mower (not suitable for personal, family or household purposes) from Stercutus Mowers (“SM”) for $15,000. In concluding the sale, SM presented a one-page contract that contained the following language:

SM undertakes, affirms and agrees that this mower is free of defects in
material and workmanship at the time of its delivery to the buyer. If the
mower or one of its component parts fails within one year of delivery to the
buyer because the mower or its component part was defective when
installed, SM shall repair or replace at its sole option any such mower or
component part at its own cost or expense. Other remedies are excluded.

The contract also stated in bold, 12-point font:

THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED AND
PARTICULARLY, THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
MADE BY SM IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF THIS MOWER.

Authorized representatives of Bright and SM signed the contract and Bright took delivery of the mower.

Over the next six months, Bright experienced numerous problems with the mower. The bolt holding the mower blade in place broke five times under normal usage. The steering system was faulty, causing unsightly and uneven lines in mowing jobs. The gas tank installation was defective, causing intermittent gas leaks. Several times the mower would not start due to various electrical faults and Bright had to cancel planned jobs. As a result, Bright lost clients and $5,000 in profits.

Bright took the mower to SM each time it malfunctioned. SM effected repairs and the mower would work for a while and then malfunction again. Sometimes the replacement part would fail, other times a different part would fail. The mower was returned to SM for repairs 12 times in the first six months after purchase.

At the beginning of the seventh month after purchase, the mower’s steering wheel came off during a job. At that point, Bright communicated to SM that it wished to return the mower and be refunded the purchase price. SM refused, pointing to the clauses above in the original contract. Bright then sued SM for breach of contract and warranty.

1. Is Bright likely to prevail in its suit against SM? Discuss.
2. If Bright prevails, what remedies, if any, would likely be available? Discuss.

Q2 Contracts 2021Feb Q and Selected As.pdf

164355 Bytes

ファイルダウンロードについて

ダウンロード

答案