July 2024 First Example Ten-point Answers to Virginia Essay Questions

July 2024 - QUESTION 1 – VIRGINIA BAR EXAMINATION

      Susan Swift ordered patio chairs from World’s Best Patio Furniture Shop (World’s Best), which is located in Cape Charles, Virginia, when she was there on vacation. The chairs were to be delivered the following week to her home in Chesapeake, Virginia. After receiving Susan’s order, World’s Best shipped the chairs to Susan as requested and charged her for the aggregate amount of the purchase price of the patio chairs plus shipping charges.

      When the chairs arrived, Susan noticed that all of the chair legs were dented. She was busy getting the patio ready for summer though and did not call World’s Best until a couple of days after she received the damaged chairs. When Susan spoke to World’s Best a couple of days later, she explained that the chairs had arrived damaged and that she would not accept them because of the damage. She told them she would hold the chairs for them to pick up. World’s Best agreed to pick up the damaged chairs and to deliver a satisfactory set of replacement chairs the next day. Susan was happy World’s Best had agreed to replace the chairs. She returned the damaged chairs to their original box, put the box in her garage and made sure the garage was fully locked.

      That night, a fire broke out in the garage and everything inside the garage was completely destroyed. The garage had not been insured as to its contents and no one knew, or could determine, the origin of the fire. The next morning, World’s Best, unaware of the fire, arrived to deliver the new chairs and to collect the damaged chairs. When World’s Best learned the original chairs had been destroyed in the fire, they requested payment from Susan for both the original chairs and the replacement chairs.

  (a) May Susan refuse to pay for the original chairs that were destroyed in the fire? Explain fully.
     
  (b) What effect, if any, does the fact that Susan waited a couple of days to call World’s Best have on her position? Explain fully.
     
  (c) What effect, if any, does the fact that the chairs were destroyed in a fire in Susan’s garage have on her position? Explain fully.

July 2024 - QUESTION 1 – EXAMPLE ANSWER #1

(a) Perfect Tender Rule

Yes, Susan may refuse to pay for the original chairs that were destroyed in the fire. The sale of goods is governed by Article 2 of the UCC, which has been adopted by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Goods are any moveable items. Here, Susan ordered patio chairs. Patio chairs are moveable items, so her transaction with World’s Best Patio Furniture Shop is governed by the UCC.

Susan may refuse to pay for the original chairs because the seller did not comply with the perfect tender rule. Under the UCC, a buyer is entitled to perfect tender. The perfect tender rule requires that the seller deliver goods that perfectly match what the seller had ordered. If the seller delivers nonconforming goods, then the buyer has the option of accepting all of the goods, rejecting all of the goods, or accepting some units while rejecting others.

Here, Susan Swift ordered patio chairs, which were dented. The dents in the chairs violate the perfect tender rule because they were nonconforming goods. Susan expected to receive patio chairs without dents or other damage. Since the patio chairs were damaged and nonconforming, Susan had a right under the UCC to accept them, reject them, or accept some while rejecting others.

Therefore, since World’s Best delivered dented patio chairs and violated the perfect tender rule, Susan had a right to reject the original chairs.

(b) Reasonable Notice of Nonconforming Goods

The issue is whether Susan waived her rejection of the original chairs because she waited a couple of days to notify World’s Best of the nonconforming goods.

The fact that Susan waited a couple of days to notify World’s Best of the nonconforming goods will not have an effect on her position. Under the UCC, when a buyer rejects goods, the buyer has a duty to notify the seller of that the buyer is rejecting the nonconforming goods within a reasonable time of receiving the goods. If the buyer does not notify the seller within a reasonable time, a court will likely find that the buyer accepted the goods.

Here, Susan waited a couple of days to call World’s Best. The facts indicate that she was busy getting the patio ready for summer and did not call World’s Best immediately when she noticed the damage. World’s Best will probably argue that she did not notify them within a reasonable amount of time because she did not notify World’s Best immediately. However, a court will likely consider a couple of days to be reasonable time to notify a seller of nonconforming goods. Further, World’s Best agreed to cure the defect and replace the chairs the next day. Their agreement to cure the defect will likely harm their argument that they were not notified within a reasonable amount of time.

Therefore, since Susan notified World’s Best of the nonconforming goods within a reasonable amount of time, a court will likely find that she timely and adequately rejected the goods.

(c) The destruction of the chairs does not have an effect on Susan’s position.

Once a buyer has rejected nonconforming goods, the buyer does not hold title to those goods. The buyer has a duty to care for the goods until the seller can retrieve them. The buyer has a duty to not use the goods as if the goods were the buyer’s own.

Here, Susan took reasonable care of the goods. She put the goods back in their original box, put the box in her garage, and made sure that the garage was fully locked. Since patio chairs are outdoor furniture, it is reasonable to store them outside, and in a garage. It was not likely that the patio chairs would be destroyed or damaged in the garage. Susan took reasonable care to secure the chairs and ensure no further damage.

Therefore, the destruction of the chairs does not have an effect on Susan’s position.


July 2024 - QUESTION 1 – EXAMPLE ANSWER #2

1a: The issue here is whether the risk of loss was on Susan before returning the chairs.

The UCC applies to a sale of goods. Upon receiving nonconforming goods, a buyer can accept the goods, reject the goods in whole, or reject the goods in part. If the buyer chooses to reject the goods in whole or in part, she must give the seller such notice immediately or within a reasonable time. Waiting too long to reject goods after their receipt will result in an acceptance of the goods and a waiver of the right to reject. The risk of loss of returned goods lies with the seller in the case that the buyer is not a merchant. The buyer is obligated to hold the goods with reasonable care so as to prevent damage to the returned items. The Statute of Frauds applies to the sale of goods of $500 or more. The statute of frauds requires that a sale of goods of $500 or more be in writing, included the quantity term, and signed by the party to be bound.

Here, Susan received the chairs and immediately noticed they were dented. Pursuant to the UCC, Susan had to notify World's Best of the defect and that she was rejecting the goods. Susan notified World's Best within a couple days of noticing the defect. Susan was obligated to reject the goods immediately upon noticing the defect or within a reasonable time. There is no evidence that the couple day delay harmed World's Best nor that waiting a couple days was unreasonable, and World's Best agreed to return the chairs. Susan was holding the chairs in her garage for World's best to pick up. There are no facts that indicate that Susan acted unreasonably by doing so, nor did she act negligently in causing the fire. Accordingly, the risk of loss of the chairs, as returned items, was on World's Best. Susan offered to purchase the chairs with the order and World's Best acceptaed that offer by shipping the chairs. Once performace was complete, the agreement was taken out of the statute of frauds (assuming the chairs are worth more than $500).

Therefore, because the risk of lose of the chairs was on World's Best, Susan can refuse to pay for the destroyed chairs.

1b: The issue is whether Susan's delay in rejecting the chairs affects her ability to return them

Notice of rejection of goods received by a buyer must be given to the seller immediately upon noticing the defect or within a reasonable time thereafter.

Here, Susan noticed the dents in the chairs immediately upon receiving them. She waited a couple days to notify World's Best of this defect and that she wants to return the chairs. There are no facts that indicate this delay was unreasonable, nor was World's Best harmed by this delay. Further, World's Best agreed to return the items after Susan asked to do so.

Therefore, waiting a couple of days to call World's Best will not affect Susan's position.

1c: The issue is whether Susan had the risk of loss as the returner of goods holding them for a seller.

The holder of returned goods must store them with reasonable care to prevent damage to the goods before the seller picks up the goods. Loss of goods held in this way, that occurs through no fault of either party is not atributed to the party holding the goods.

Here, Susan placed the damaged chairs in her garage and locked it. There is no indication from the facts that Susan acted without reasonable care to protect the chairs for World's Best. Further, it cannot be determined that Susan is at fault for the detruction of the chairs. Susan does not have insurance on her garage, but absent more facts this does not indicate a lack of care.

Therefore, the chairs being destroyed in Susan's garage has no effect on her position.