Wendling ended up selling the cattle in two separate lots on October 18th and November 1st of Puls and Watson were sent a notice stipulating the details of the sale by Wendling on September 11th, which neither man responded to.
The damages were properly set as of September 21, He is apparently an active dealer in livestock, he needs to know that if he makes an agreement with a buyer or seller then he may be held accountable for what he states he can perform or provide.
When Wendling attempted to locate Puls and Watson, he was only successful in finding Watson. On August 28,Wendling sought legal advice and was advised he should obtain a written release from Puls and Watson before reselling the cattle. Appellants argue the Desbien case supports their contention the delivery date agreed upon by the parties, August 23,is the correct date from which to measure damages.
A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing. Influence on procurement managers: Wendling advised Puls and Watson he did not feel free to sell the livestock without a written release.
We find no error and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Although in the beginning of the case Mr. Wendling then sent the notice on September 11,to both appellants fixing the "tender" date at September 21,giving appellants 10 days to respond. We believe that action was proper in this case.
The requirements of K. Wendling deposited the check on August 20th. Wendling, the plaintiff set the date of September 21st,which the court found reasonable since within the letter sent September 11th gave the defendants 10 days to act.
The next day Wendling could not locate Puls but was able to talk to Dr. They did not appear at the law office as requested, leaving Wendling uncertain as to their intentions.
All parties admit they entered into a contract for the sale of goods. I would think that this goes without saying, but this was in fact what he told Wendling was holding him up from picking up the heads of cattle. Although he was only a silent partner, he is still related to the contract. The court found that plaintiff's actions in holding the cattle for the defendants beyond the August 23,delivery date and "in electing to forestall the declaration of a breach of the contract in an attempt to secure the performance of the defendants thereto, were reasonable and it was proper under the circumstances for plaintiff to set a reasonable time in which defendants were required to complete the contract; that the September 21,date set by plaintiff for defendants to complete the contract was reasonable; that September 21,is a proper date upon which to measure plaintiff's damages for breach of the contract by the defendants.
This controversy arose out of the following facts: Wendling rounded up the cattle and penned them on August 23,in preparation for delivery pursuant to the agreement but the defendants neither appeared, sent trucks, nor called. Second, we agree that where a seller withholds delivery of the goods because of a buyer's breach, the buyer is entitled to restitution of his down payment, pursuant to K.
Puls assured him they did. Therefore, the court found that the seller's actions in regard to holding the cattle beyond the initial contractual date as an attempt to prevent breach of contract on behalf the buyers was reasonable and proper under the circumstances as a last ditch effort to give the buyers a reasonable time to complete the contract.
We will write a custom essay sample on Case Study: Since Ted Puls had experience with being a cattle dealer, he should have known a fair amount of what he was getting into. This is certainly not possible in most cases, but worth avoiding a headache when it is possible.
Wendling asked three qualified livestock dealers to make a bid on the cattle that same day. Wendling indicated to Puls he might have some cattle for sale around the middle of August, A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.Case Study #2 Phillip Eugene Wendling, Appllee V.
Ted Puls and George Watson P.2d Procedural History: Plaintiff, (Wendling) sued defendants (Puls and Watson) for breach of oral contract and to recover damages for the purchase of cattle. Phillip Eugene Wendling, Appellee, v.
Ted Puls and George Watson, Appellants (Case Study). A discussion of procedural history, facts, issues, answer/holdings, and reasoning and disposition for. Case Study: Phillip Eugene Wendling, Appllee V. Ted Puls and George Watson Essay.
Phillip Eugene Wendling, a Harvey County farmer and stockman, told Ted Puls, an active cattle buyer, in July of that he might have some cattle for sale around the middle of that August - Case Study: Phillip Eugene Wendling, Appllee V.
Ted Puls and George Watson Essay introduction. Eugene V. Debs Citizen and Socialist Nick Salvatore’s book Eugene V. Debs Citizen and Socialist provides a very detailed account of the life and times and Eugene Debs. Debs was born in Terre Haute Indiana and Salvatore emphasizes the important role that this played in Debs upbringing.
Explain 2 types of barriers to entry which can prevent potential competitors from entering an industry Monopoly and oligopoly both are types of barriers to entry. Case Study: Hollis V Vabu Case Study: Phillip Eugene Wendling, Appllee V.
Ted Puls and George Watson 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (Callaghan) May 10,Opinion Filed The Procedural History: Phillip Eugene Wendling, a Harvey County farmer and stockman, told Ted Puls, an active cattle buyer, in July of that he might have some cattle.Download