Memoirs of a Bar Examinee

[Sparkz1920]

A

The contract provided that "neither party will assign this contract without the written consent of the other"

Singer didnt get Byers consent

Null and void im guessing

[Sparkz1920]

I don't know a damn thing about anything, and I'd say that Wheeler can't recover from Byer at all.  Wheeler would need to recover from S, who in turn would be able to recover from W.  And W can probably recover from the shipping company, since FOB implies that the goods become W's once they are handed to the shipping company, and W must have arranged the shipping and would be protected against what happened if the goods were insured.

I didnt think Wheeler could recover from Byer at all because the goods were technically, not his yet. Transfer never occured. Shyt, i dunno

Doesn't FOB imply that the transfer happens when the goods are turned over to the shipping company?  I could be wrong, but that's what sticks out of my head from an undergradute international trade course i took in 1999.

I'm literally a 0L with 0 legal knowledge, for what it's worth.  I'm talking out my ass.

Hmmmm, you may know more than me, so you could be very right. Im not sure at all

But im guessing, since the goods were not Wheelers, he cannot get anything

Then on top of that, the contract was never approved, signed, or whatever by the other party like it was supposed to, so i dont think the ownership of the goods ever transferred

[Sparkz1920]

I don't know a damn thing about anything, and I'd say that Wheeler can't recover from Byer at all.  Wheeler would need to recover from S, who in turn would be able to recover from W.  And W can probably recover from the shipping company, since FOB implies that the goods become W's once they are handed to the shipping company, and W must have arranged the shipping and would be protected against what happened if the goods were insured.

I didnt think Wheeler could recover from Byer at all because the goods were technically, not his yet. Transfer never occured. Shyt, i dunno

Doesn't FOB imply that the transfer happens when the goods are turned over to the shipping company?  I could be wrong, but that's what sticks out of my head from an undergradute international trade course i took in 1999.

I'm literally a 0L with 0 legal knowledge, for what it's worth.  I'm talking out my ass.

Oh honey, im talking out my ass too. Im a 0L as well. But at least we're backing our statements up with some type of knoweldge. May be wrong, but hey, we're still learning

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

In a written contract Singer agreed to deliver to Byer 500 described chairs at $20 each F.O.B. Singer's place of business.  The contract provided that "neither party will assign this contract without the written consent of the other."  Singer placed the chairs on board a carrier on January 30.  On February 1 Singer said in a signed writing, "I hereby assign to Wheeler all my rights under the Singer-Byer contract."  Singer did not request and did not get Byer's consent to this transaction.  On February 2 the chairs while in transit were destroyed in a derailment of the carrier's railroad car.

In an action by Wheeler against Byer, Wheeler probably will recover

(A) nothing, because the Singer-Byer contract forbade an assignment
(B) the difference between the contract price and the market value of the chairs
(C) nothing, because the chairs had not been delivered
(D) $10,000, the contract price

OK ok ok, I'll end the madness for today (I'll be sure to post the Property one tomorrow).  Good to see so many well reasoned responses.  By the way, before we get into the answer, I forgot to mention that you have, on average, 1.8 minutes (that's 1 minute 48 seconds) per question.  So everything we just talked about, you have to go through your brain in less than 2 minutes and keep it moving to the next one.


So what the hell is the answer?  There are a couple of different issues going on here. There's the FOB issue, and the assignment issue.

Sounds like you guys got the FOB issue right. Whenever something is shipped from a Seller to a Buyer, the general rule as you may recall from contracts, is that if anything happens to the goods, such as, oh let's say a friggin train wreck, then the Seller is the one who bears the burden of taking the loss.  However (there's that word again) whenever you have an FOB situation, that allows the Seller to shift the risk to the Buyer once the goods reach the FOB destination and the Seller then puts them on a carrier.  At that point, the Seller can wipe their hands and walk away with no risk should something happen later on.

So here, "Singer agreed to deliver to Byer 500 described chairs at $20 each F.O.B. [to] Singer's place of business" and then "Singer placed the chairs on board a carrier on January 30."  At this point, Singer has shifted the risk to Byer because of the FOB clause that Byer agreed to in the K (K = contract for the 0L's out there).  If anything happens to the goods after January 30th, it's on Byer.

That's issue #1.

Issue #2 is this assignment business.  Direct quote from PMBR: "As a general rule, all contracts are assignable and delegable except personal service contracts and long-term requirement contracts.  Even though there may be an anti-assignment provision in a contract [like here], it does not prevent the assignor [Singer] from assigning his rights. When an assignor makes an assignment in violation of an anti-assignment clause, the assignment is valid."

So there you have it.

Answer is D.

[A.]

w00t w00t!

[A.]

I think it makes sense in this case.  What harm could come from allowing Singer to assign the contract to Wheeler *after* he'd shipped the goods?  It seems like the anti-assigment provision is mainly to make sure Singer doesn't let a subpar maker produce the goods.  But since he didn't do that, it should be fine for him to give someone else the right to collect on the money.

[slacker]

Alci; that's pretty much it. When you consider an assignment, the assignment gets split into the assignment of benefits and the delegation of duties. In this case, Singer performed the duties under the K, and then assigned the benefits to Wheeler. Delegating the duties can change the value of the K, but assigning the benefits doesn't change the terms, conditions, expectation.

[A.]

Yes, that's a more lawyerly way of saying it .  Ah, contracts...

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Alci; that's pretty much it. When you consider an assignment, the assignment gets split into the assignment of benefits and the delegation of duties. In this case, Singer performed the duties under the K, and then assigned the benefits to Wheeler. Delegating the duties can change the value of the K, but assigning the benefits doesn't change the terms, conditions, expectation.

Right on.  Although it doesn't make much sense to "assign" your benefits to somebody else after you've done all the dirty work, the law definitely allows it.


What do you think of the bar process so far, Slacker?

Ahh...the assignment was valid. Interesting (and some bull, but that's law!)

I've been saying that for 3 years now. 

[A.]

Or Singer could simply be satisfying a debt to Wheeler.