03 Feb Prepare answers to the following chapter-end Criti
Prepare answers to the following chapter-end Critical Legal Thinking Cases from this week’s reading. Case 13.5: Innocent Misrepresentation on page 230 Case 20.1: Cure on page 339 Your responses should be well-rounded and analytical, and should not just provide a conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice For full credit, you need to use the material from the week’s lectures, text, and/or discussions when responding to the questions. It is important that you incorporate the question into your response (i.e., restate the question in your introduction) and explain the legal principle(s) or concept(s) from the text that underlies your judgment. For each question, you should provide at least one reference in APA format (in-text citations and references as described in detail in the Syllabus). Each answer should be double-spaced in 12-point font, and your response to each question should be between 300-700 13.5 Innocent Misrepresentation W. F. Yost, who owned the Red Barn Barbecue Restaurant (Red Barn), listed it for sale. Richard and Evelyn Ramano of Rieve Enterprises, Inc. (Rieve), were interested in buying the restaurant. After visiting and conducting a visual inspection of the premises, Rieve entered into a contract to purchase the assets and equipment of Red Barn, as well as the five-year lease of, and option to buy, the land and the building. Prior to the sale, the restaurant had been cited for certain health violations that Yost had corrected. In the contract of sale, Yost warranted that the premises will pass all inspections to conduct the business. Rieve took possession immediately after the sale and operated the restaurant. After two weeks, when the Board of Health conducted a routine inspection, it cited 52 health code violations and thereupon closed the restaurant. Rieve sued to rescind the purchase agreement. Evidence established that Yost’s misrepresentations were innocently made. Can Rieve rescind the contract? Yost v. Rieve Enterprises, Inc., 461 So.2d 178, Web 1984 Fla. App. Lexis 16490 (Court of Appeals of Florida) Critical Legal Thinking Cases 20.1 Cure Joc Oil USA, Inc. (Joc Oil), contracted to purchase low-sulfur fuel oil from an Italian oil refinery. The Italian refinery issued a certificate to Joc Oil, indicating that the sulfur content of the oil was 0.50 percent. Joc Oil entered into a sales contract to sell the oil to Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con Ed). Con Ed agreed to pay an agreed-upon price per barrel for oil not to exceed 0.50 percent sulfur. When the ship delivering the oil arrived, it discharged the oil into three Con Ed storage tanks. A report issued by Con Ed stated that the sulfur content of the oil was 0.92 percent. In the past, Con Ed had permitted a delivery of nonconforming oil to be cured by a conforming delivery. Joc Oil made an offer to cure the defect by substituting a conforming shipment of oil that was already on a ship that was to arrive within two weeks. Con Ed rejected Joc Oil’s offer to cure. Joc Oil sued Con Ed for damages for breach of contract.