Bonus Questions Bellow you will find the bonus questions. Th…
Questions
Bоnus Questiоns Bellоw you will find the bonus questions. They аre optionаl but they cаn increase your score. Each bonus question counts 1 point. Please, disregard the points you see on the Canvas Quiz Questions (0.01)
Plаintiff is а cоrpоrаtiоn engaged in buying and selling grain, including soybeans, and has its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. The Defendant is a California corporation and operates a grain elevator in Fresno, California. On September 14, 2024, the parties entered into a contract under which Plaintiff agreed to buy from the Defendant, and Defendant agreed to sell to Plaintiff, 10,000 bushels of soybeans of a certain grade and quality at $2.20 per bushel; delivery was to be made during the period from October 1, through November 30, 2024, at seller’s option. Plaintiff was to furnish shipping instructions to the Defendant as the several carloads of beans were loaded. A carload of soybeans contains approximately 2,000 bushels. On October 30, 2024, Defendant loaded a car of beans for the Plaintiff and called on the latter for shipping instructions which were furnished on the same day. These beans were shipped to an oil mill in Abilene, Texas, to which they had been sold by the Plaintiff. Upon shipment, the Defendant drew a draft on the Plaintiff for ninety (90) percent of the purchase price of the beans; this was in accordance with the custom of the trade; and the draft was duly paid when presented. The remaining ten (10) percent has not been paid. On October 31, 2024, Defendant loaded another carload of beans for the Plaintiff and called upon it for shipping instructions. Plaintiff’s agent told Defendant’s agent that Plaintiff desired to consign this carload of beans to New Orleans for export, that a clearance would have to be obtained from the authorities at that point for the reception of the beans, and that shipping instructions would be furnished as soon as such a clearance was obtained, which might be in 30 minutes or as late as two days. In any event, shipping instructions for this car were not given until November 2, about 48 hours after they had been requested, and when Plaintiff furnished the instructions, it was informed that the Defendant considered the contract had been breached, and that no more beans would be shipped thereunder. Plaintiff declined to agree to cancellation and insisted on performance. The Defendant, however, refused to delivery any more beans under the contract. Between the date of the contract and November 30, the price of soybeans rose substantially and steadily. On November 3, the price was substantially higher than it was on September 14; and on November 30 and December 1, it was substantially higher than it was on November 2. There was no material difference in price, however, between November 30 and December 1. On December 1, 2024, Plaintiff purchased 8,000 bushels of soybeans for the Defendant’s account, and thereafter brought an action to recover the difference between the market price paid for the beans and the contract price plus interest. The Defendant in its pleadings and at the trial admitted the execution of the contract sued upon and further that it had shipped only one carload of beans, but it contended that the delay of the Plaintiff in furnishing shipping instructions with respect to the second carload was a substantial breach of the contract which justified it in refusing further performance. Plaintiff claimed any alleged breach on its part did not excuse Defendant from its duty to perform the contract. Please discuss the legal elements necessary to resolve the issue and the facts in support of the position of party.
Immediаtely аfter hitting submit, аnd ending yоur Hоnоrlock session, please upload pictures of all work using any method of your choosing to the Assignment Comments of this exam. Your work must match the videos of your work you have already uploaded in the exam.