Question: Hello please chegg using IRAC method. Can you please explain the analysis part becasue I am getting a hard time to di that part. It
Problem McNeely entered into a contract with Wagner to pay $250,000 as a lump sum for all timber present in a given area that Wagner would remove for McNeely. The contract estimated that the volume in the area would be 780,000 board feet. Wagner also had provisions in the contract that made no warranties as to the amount of lumber and that he would keep whatever timber was not harvested if McNeely ended the contract before the harvesting was complete. The $250,000 was to be paid in three advances. McNeely paid two of the three advances but withheld the third payment and ended the contract because he said there was not enough timber. Wagner filed suit for the remaining onethird of the payment. McNeely said Wagner could not have the remaining one-third of the payment as well as the transfer; he had to choose between the two remedies. Is he correct? [Wagner v McNeely, 38 UCC2d 1176 (Or)]
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Get step-by-step solutions from verified subject matter experts
