Basis Technology Corp V. Amazon. Com, Inc Summary

697 Words2 Pages

1. Basis Technology Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc. a. Suppose that the attorneys for both sides had simply had a phone conversation that included all of the terms they actually agreed on in their e-mail exchanges. Would the court have ruled differently? Why or why not? i. More than likely not. As stated by the court, “the motion and opposition presented the issues whether the e-mail terms were sufficiently complete and definite to form an agreement and whether Amazon had intent to be bound by them.” (Basis Technology Corp V. Amazon.com, Inc.) So, there was no issue with the agreement’s form, there was only a question of intent. The only reason the terms were objected to was because “it concluded a trial.” (Basis Technology Corp V. Amazon.com, Inc.) Since terms expressed orally can be as binding as ones …show more content…

Since the Court found that Jacob & Youngs had substantially preformed the contract, and that the cost to remedy to damages unreasonable, Kent is entitled to be compensated the difference in value between the reading manufacture pipe specified in the contract and the pipe that was actually installed. 3. Person v. Bowman a. What did the contract between Herring and the Bowmans require Herring to do? What is the significance of these provisions? i. The contract stipulated that Herring must make a down payment, make timely payments, pay a boarding fee, not remove the horse without permission, be responsible for all incidental costs associated with the horse and give up on the contract if the payments were defaulted on. Additionally, registration papers were not to be released until Herring paid in full. These provisions gave the Bowmans the ability to recover the horse in case of default on the payments. Thus providing a security interest for the seller until there was no risk of loss. Even though Herring was not in full possession of the horse, the provisions established that Herring owned the horse. b. On the issue of liability, in whose favor did the court rule?

Open Document