8 business law question and one discussion

8 Question:  Please counterpart the essay scrutiny of stipulation 22 and 24  in component after a while citing. Chapter 22 – assignment: Essay Questions 1,3,4,5 page526-527 Chapter 24 – assignment: Essay Questions 1,3,4,5 page 584-585 1 Discussion:   Case Case: Byblos U.S.A., Inc. v. Morris & Sons[1] Facts: Byblos sold off‑price constructor investment affected by an Italian committer association. Morris & Sons was a Chicago retailer that had been retailing men’s and women's investment for 40 years. Aaron Krichevsky, the principal of Morris, contacted Patricia Saracini, the sales director for Byblos, to argue buying some Byblos investment. He recognized that he wanted barely first-quality stock in good-tempered-tempered condition–no samples or injured good-tempereds. She agreed to transmit such items. He further forcible the kinds of investment Morris required. The parties agreed that Byblos's sales representatives would fine stock for Morris and ship it, spectacle invisible, for eulogy or repudiation. Over a three‑year era, Byblos made encircling 14 shipments to Morris, after a while each shipment containing from 10 to 400 profession of investment. Each shipment contained an invoice, ranging from $1,000 to $12,000. Morris sold some but not all of the investment. Krichevsky testified that abundant of the good-tempereds were imperfect. For development, some of the adult sweaters had an hole capacious abundance barely for an infant's section. Nonetheless, Morris continued to sanction the shipments, and to retail what items it could. After the last shipment, Morris tranquil owing encircling $111,000, which it refused to pay consequently of the alleged defects. Byblos sued. Issue: Were the raiment non-conforming? Was Morris’s repudiation of the good-tempereds potent? Holding: Judgment for Byblos. Question: Neither border said anything encircling warranties. Did the good-tempereds after after a while any warranties?