Question

Extra Credit Assignment 1 – Contract Law

Instructions: In this scenario, you are the junior attorney at a local Connecticut law firm. A senior attorney within the firm has asked for you to meet with new clients and to draft a memorandum of their legal issues and your assessment thereof. The memorandum should be concise following the IRAC formula for each legal issue identified.

Note: this assignment will require you to research the Connecticut Uniform Commercial Code – Volume 11 of the C.G.S. Title 42a (§ 42a-1-101 et al.)

Client Meeting:

Mary and Josephine McAllister were married on January 15, 2020. The ceremony took place in a beautiful, picturesque barn on a farm in the renowned fields of Litchfield county in Connecticut. The ceremony was attended by not only family and friends but also very important business clients, state and federal politicians as well as A-list celebrities.

Unfortunately, their dream wedding ceremony did not go as planned. In fact at the wedding dinner following the ceremony, the wrong wine service was provided. The wine did not pair with any of the culinary preparations. While most of the guests were unaware of this fact, Mary and Josephine McAllister were devastated.

In preparation, Mary and Josephine McAllister met several months in advance with a variety of vendors to procure all the goods and services necessary for their dream wedding ceremony. Mary and Josephine McAllister entered into a contract with a local restauranteur to procure, to prepare and to serve all of the food selections including wine service. Mary and Josephine McAllister met with both the Chef de Cuisine and the Sommelier and carefully selected each course and wine pairing. A contract was drafted by the restaurant and signed by all parties. The cost of the contract was in total $50,000 of which the wine service cost $15,000. The Sommelier was very clear in his verbal communication with both Mary and Josephine McAllister that the wine selected would have to purchase by a distributor as the restaurant neither possessed nor stored said wine on hand. Mary and Josephine McAllister understood and thought that it would be no problem since the wedding ceremony was several months away.

Upon the executed contract and upon advance payment of $25,000, both the Chef de Cuisine and the Sommelier began procuring items for the wedding ceremony. The Sommelier contacted their wine distributor and placed an order for the wine as specified in the contract. The distributor informed the Sommelier that he believed that the wine could be procured on time but did warn that the warehouse in the port of call was under new management and that they were having trouble getting orders out timely.

A month before the wedding ceremony, the wine distributor called the warehouse to inquire about the order. The warehouse informed the wine distributor that the shipment from France had arrived but that the shipment was held up due to problems with the Bill of Lading. Specifically, the Bill of Ladings appeared to have the wrong description for each container of goods shipped. The wine distributor expressed the importance of this order and asked the warehouse to sort it out as quickly as possible.

A week before the wedding ceremony, the wine distributor sent his delivery service to the ports of New Jersey to pick up the wine order directly from the warehouse because he had yet to receive the order delivery, despite the fact that the contract for the wine including delivery to his local facility in Connecticut. Upon arrival, the warehouse refused to release the shipment to the delivery driver because it was not the carrier listed on the paperwork.

The wine distributor frustrated by the warehouse and the situation in general informed the Sommelier of the issues and offered to provide wine on hand that best matched the client’s order. The Sommelier desperate for wine accepted the wine distributor’s offer of wine on hand. The Sommelier informed Josephine McAllister of the situation promising that the wine was of equal quality and that it would be just as good.

The Sommelier picked up several cases of wine from the wine distributor marked for the wedding dinner. Trusting the wine distributor, the Sommelier never inspected the bottles of wine. The Sommelier brought the cases of wine to the barn and upon opening of the cases immediately recognized that the wine was not was agreed upon. Having no choice, the Sommelier decided to serve the wine.

Mary McAllister was very knowledgeable of wine and upon tasting it knew immediately that it was not the same as promised.   Unfortunately, Mary McAllister could not do anything about it during the wedding dinner.

Mary and Josephine McAllister would like to know what can be done legally, if anything. The McAllister’s would like to refuse to pay the remainder of the contract of $25,000.

what can mary and josephine legally do? Can they not pay the remaining 25,000?

Answer 1

Answer - As per consumer contract regulation 2013, upon breach of contract and delivery of a different item than what is agreed and paid for, the client can claim for a full refund. So as a different variety of wine was delivered to Mary and Josephine, the initial amount that was cannot be claimed back as they have consumed the delivered wine already but they can refuse to pay the remaining $25,000 to The Sommelier.

Note - If the answer was helpful please upvote this answer to encourage me to write more such answers and help students. Thanks and All the Best !!