Casestudy3 Guymason

Critical Legal Thinking Case Study 3
Mason Guy
Class 2110
Florida State College at Jacksonville
Summer 2021
CASESTUDY3 2
The key facts in this case are as follows: Frank is the receiving dock supervisor for Cabinet Co.,
which is a company that manufactures metal storage cabinets. Frank’s job is to supervise the inspection
and stocking of all the components and materials that are used in the manufacturing process of the
cabinets as they are delivered to the receiving dock, as well as notifying the accounting department
about the shipments arrival so invoices can be paid in a timely manner. On the 1st of June, the company
received a shipment of casters that would not be needed for three weeks due to the number of casters
already on the assembly line. The facility where the casters are normally stored is under renovation, so
Frank left the unopened boxes of casters in a secure and covered corner of the receiving dock. Frank
notified the accounting department that the shipment of casters had been received, so the accounting
department paid the $8,000.00 invoice in time to earn a discount if the order was paid for within ten
days. On the 20th of June Frank had his workers open the boxes of casters for inspection as well as move
them to the appropriate storage area. During inspection, it was determined that most of the casters
were defective and unusable for the manufacture of the metal storage cabinets. Because they ran out of
casters and the casters in the shipment were unusable the company was forced to default on multiple
contracts. The company was able to replace the casters, but at a 15% increase in cost.
The areas and principles of law in this case are as follows: The legal code known as the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) provides Cabinet Co. several rights and remedies regarding the contract
between them and the seller of the casters being revoked, or to recover compensation for damages
incurred through the failure to provide casters that met the standard for use. The legal doctrine
Respondeat Superior and Negligence provides the seller of the casters some protections/rights.
Cabinet Co.’s remedies are related to the facts of this case. Frank’s job at Cabinet Co. is to
supervise the inspection and stocking of the components and materials that are used in the
manufacturing process of the metal storage cabinets as they are delivered to the receiving dock. After
inspection, Frank is required to notify the accounting department so the invoices can be paid in a timely
CASESTUDY3 3
manner. On the 1st of June, when the company received the shipment of casters, it was Frank’s
duty/responsibility to supervise the inspection of the casters and then store them. Instead, Frank did not
have his workers inspect the casters when they arrived; Frank had his workers store them in a secure,
covered corner of the receiving dock. Frank should have had his workers inspect the shipment of casters
on June 1st and then had them stored. Frank showed negligence by notifying the accounting department
about the delivery before having the shipment inspected.
Despite Frank’s negligence of not inspecting the shipment of casters until the 20th of June,
Cabinet Co. still has some options moving forward. Cabinet Co. can use the rule of Revocation of
Acceptance. The rule of Revocation of Acceptance, found in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) section
2-608, states (1) the buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity
substantially impairs its value to him if he accepts it, (2) revocation of acceptance must occur within a
reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it and before any
substantial change in condition of the goods which is not caused by their own defects, and (3) a buyer
who so revokes has the same rights and duties with regard to the goods involved as if he had rejected
them. Cabinet Co. can also use section 2-711 of the UCC to seek legal remedies for the shipment of
unusable casters. Section 2-711 gives multiple options to the buyer, who in this case is Cabinet Co. The
buyer can (1) “cover” the product from somewhere else and ask for reimbursement for the additional
costs of purchasing from an alternate source, or (2) the buyer can recuperate damages for non-delivery
of goods. When the shipment was inspected, Cabinet Co. determined that the delivered casters do not
meet the standard needed for manufacturing, and more than likely the standard stated in the contract
between Cabinet Co. and the caster supplier. Therefore, Cabinet Co. has the options of seeking legal
remedies, claim for compensation for their losses, and ask the seller of the casters to discuss the
possible recovery of damages. Despite the UCC, Cabinet Co. may still be liable through the negligence of
Frank.
CASESTUDY3 4
Due to the negligence of Frank, the seller of the casters has some options as well. Through the
legal doctrine Respondeat Superior, which is translated as “let the master answer”, the caster company
can utilize their rights against Revocation of Acceptance and can deny any reimbursement if Frank’s
negligence can be proven. Respondeat Superior states the employer is legally responsible for the actions
of employees if the employee is acting within the course and scope of employment. Due to Frank failing
to perform his duties while on the job and the use of Respondeat Superior, Cabinet Co. could be found
liable and suffer the loss.
For the future, Cabinet Co. should implement new rules for the inspection and acceptance of a
shipment as received. All shipments should pass through inspection prior to the shipment being marked
as received; the accounting department should also ensure the shipment has been inspected before
paying the invoice associated with that shipment. Once the shipment has been confirmed to have gone
through inspection the accounting department can then pay the invoice. Furthermore, Cabinet Co.
should ensure there is always a storage location for shipments available, to ensure shipments are not
placed in a location that could result in damage to any components or materials. If these checks and
balances are implemented Cabinet Co. should not run into this problem again.

Casestudy3 Guymason

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casestudy3 Guymason

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Casestudy3 Guymason

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Legal Thinking Case Study 3

Florida State College at Jacksonville

about the delivery before having the shipment inspected.

liable and suffer the loss.

You might also like