Running head: LESSON 4 CASE STUDY

Lesson 4 Case Studies

Prasiddha Bhakta Shrestha
BUS 540: Business Law for Managers
Professor: Flavia LLOYD
July 26, 2015

LESSON 4 CASE STUDIES

2
Business Law Cases

Case 16-1: Brandt v. Boston Scientific Corporation and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center
This case is about the situation relating to article 2 (sales) of the Uniform Commercial
Code (UCC). In this case Brandt sued Boston scientific corporation and the health for breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability included in article 2 (sales) of the Uniform Commercial
Code (UCC). This situation arises when brandt admitted to Saran Bush Lincoln health service to
receive treatment for unitary incontinence. In the surgical process doctor implanted ProteGen
Sling. Brandt suffered serious complications and had the sling surgically removed.
Case Review
Ethical dilemma
Analyzing the case, Brandt would have a reasonable cause to file case against Health
center. Because Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center was the institute where Brandt receives his
medical treatment, during his treatment he suffered serious complications. So during the surgery
Health center used sling that is of low standard. So its ethical to file a case against Health center.
But since Brandt had file a case regarding implied warranty of merchantability included in article
2 (sales), it does not cover institute for provision of service like medical. So court dismissed case
against health center. Since the case is lawful Health center cannot recover its lawyers fee.
Summary and Conclusion
Contracts for the provision of services including legal services, medical services and
dental services are not covered by Article 2(sales).

LESSON 4 CASE STUDIES

Case 17-1: Lindholm v. Brant:

In the given case, 1962 a famous artist Andy Warhol created a silkscreen on canvas which
was titled as Red Elvis. In 1987 with the assistance and advice of Malmberg, Lindholm
purchased Red Elvis for $300,000. In 2000, Malmberg convinced Lindholm to place Red Elvis
on loan to Louisiana museum. Lindholm agreed and gave permission to Malmberg to obtain
possession of Red Elvis. But instead of placing Red Elvis on loan to Louisiana museum,
Malmberg sell the Red Elvis to Peter M. Brant. On the other hand Lindholm made a contract to
sell Red Elvis to a Japanese buyer. Shortly he noticed a fraud and sue file to Brant.
Case Review
Ethical Dilemma:
Analyzing the case, Malmberg acted unethically because Lindholm agreed and gave
permission to Malmberg to obtain possession of Red Elvis. But instead of placing Red Elvis on
loan to Louisiana museum, Malmberg sell the Red Elvis to Peter M. Brant. Since his intention
was to fraud and cheat Lindholm, he is also supposed to have acted criminally. talking about the
responsibility, Lindholm too possess some responsibility because having her property she would
have ensure and inspect about the fraudulent activity of Malmberg. So She possess some
responsibility for the loss of Red Elvis.

Summary and Conclusion

This case is about the entrustment rule. It states that if the owner entrust the possession of
his or her goods the merchant has the power to transfer all right in the goods to a buyer in the
ordinary course of business. The real owner cannot reclaim the goods from this buyer.

LESSON 4 CASE STUDIES

Case: UCC Imposes Duties of Good Faith and Reasonableness:

Generally the contract is done is expressed terms. There is no breach of contract unless
the parties fail to meet this term. But the Uniform Commercial code (UCC) imposes two broad
principles that govern the performance of sale and lease contracts. They are good faith and
reasonableness.
Case Review:
Ethical Dilemma:
Adopting the concept of good faith in UCC helps in promoting ethical behavior. Since
every contract within this act imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or
enforcement. Thus both parties owe a duty of good faith to perform a sale or lease contract. It
promotes a ethical behavior in long term.
Summary and Conclusion
Analyzing the case, the main idea of the case is to focus on the UCC contract. Every
contract within this act imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.
Thus both parties owe a duty of good faith to perform a sale or lease contract.

LESSON 4 CASE STUDIES

Case: Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Nancy Denny purchased a Bronco a sport utility vehicle manufactured by Ford motor
company. She testified the purpose of the car is to drive at paved roads not in off road. one day
when she was driving her Bronco she crashed on the brakes to save the deer. She was badly
injured. Later she files a case against Ford Motor Company arguing that the company breached a
implied contract. But Ford countered that the company made that car especially for off road. But
their marketing prospectus and sales data shows it was specially designed for paved road. Thus
court found the company has violated the implied warranty of merchantability.
Case Review:
Ethical Dilemma:
Analyzing the case it is clear that Ford has acted unethically to avoid its implied warranty
of merchantability. Ford countered that the company made that car especially for off road. But
their marketing prospectus and sales data shows it was specially designed for paved road. Thus
court found the company has violated the implied warranty of merchantability.

Summary and Conclusion

Unless property disclosed a warranty that is implied that sold or leased goods are fit for ordinary
purposes for which they are sold or leased as well other assurance.

LESSON 4 CASE STUDIES

Reference:
Cheeseman, H. (2014). Contemporary Business and Online Commerce Law. Prentice Hall,