Donald Trimp Case Study

1475 Words6 Pages
Since Donald Trimp made a sales of good business with Paul Bighand’s supply center and the sales of goods are worth more than $500, this contract must follow all the rules under UCC. As what UCC has said, a contract for the sale of goods worth $500 or more is not enforceable unless there is some writing, signed by the defendant, indicating that the parties reached an agreement. The contract must consist a statement of the quantity of goods being sold as well. However, there is an exception when it comes to the sales of good. If the buyer receives and accepts the goods, the contract will become enforceable. Donald Trimp has received the supplies from Paul; therefore, he must pay Paul. Eric defense his son by saying that he would “stand good”…show more content…
However, Whinney refuses to give FlightyFoote away to Gabe when Hooftastic died. What Whinney did is an example of true impossibility. True impossibility means that something has happened making it literally impossible to do what the promisor said he would. True impossibility is generally limited to these three causes: (1) destruction of the subject matter, (2) the death of the promisor in a personal service contract and (3) illegality. The first one, the example of the destruction of the subject matter can be evaluated by observing on what has happened to the Hooftastic, Hooftastic was the subject matter in the contract; however, due to some reasons, he died. Therefore, the true impossibility can be used for this particular cause. The next two causes are not related to Whinney’s case since illegality occurs when the case are involving with globally management and secondly, Whinney has not dead in this case. Since Hooftastic died, therefore, it is impossible for Whinney to send the exact horse to Gabe. The contract requires Whinney sells Hooftastic only and there is no other term applies that he must substitute the horse with other horse if there is anything happens to the horse. Therefore, Whinney is correct. Gabe cannot sue Whinney for not being able to give him
Open Document