7. Steel Industries, Inc., ordered steel from Interlink Metals & Chemicals. The steel was to be delivered from a Russian mill. There were political and other issues in Russia, and the mill was shut down. Interlink did not deliver the steel to Steel Industries, claiming that it was excused from performance because it could not get the steel from the Russian mill. What would Interlink have to establish to show that it was excused from performing under the doctrine of commercial impracticability? [Steel Industries, Inc. v. Interlink Metals & Chemicals, Inc., 969 F. Supp. 1046 (E. D. Mich.)]

 

12. Mark Murray and Ian Peck are art dealers who own separate art galleries located in New York. Robert and Jean Weil reside in Montgomery, Alabama, and are art collectors. Murray and Sam Lehr, a business acquaintance of his, traveled to Montgomery to see the various paintings in the Weils’ collection, including a painting by Edgar Degas titled Aux Courses, which Murray examined under ultraviolet light. Murray later telephoned Weil and told him that he had spoken with someone who might be interested in purchasing the Degas. On November 3, 1997, the director of Murray’s gallery, Stephanie Calman, traveled to the Weils’ home in Alabama. Calman, on behalf of Murray, and Robert Weil executed an agreement that provided for consignment of the Degas to Murray’s gallery “ for a private inspection in New York for a period of a week” from November 3, “ to be extended only with the express permission of the consignor.” Calman returned to New York with the painting the same day. Murray then showed the Degas to Peck. Peck expressed an interest in purchasing the Degas after seeing it, and the price of $ 1,125,000 was discussed. On November 26, 1997, Murray signed an agreement drafted by Weil and retyped on Murray’s letterhead. Weil signed the agreement on December 1, 1997. Neither Murray nor anyone else ever paid Weil the $ 1 million. Nonetheless, Murray maintained possession of the Degas from November 3, 1997, through March 25, 1998, when Weil requested its return. The Weils filed suit, seeking the price for the painting via summary judgment. Are the Weils entitled to recover? Explain why or why not. [ Weil v. Murray, 161 F. Supp. 2d 250 ( S. D. N. Y.)]

 

6. Brown Machine Company, a division of Kvaerner U. S., Inc., entered into a contract to supply a machine and tools to Hakim Plast, a food container– producing company based in Cairo, Egypt, to enable Hakim to meet its growing demand for plastic containers. The plastic containers were for customers to use in the ice cream distribution industry. It was understood that the equipment would be ready for delivery before the busy summer ice cream season. Brown Machine was not able to meet the twice extended deadline. It attempted to obtain another extension, but Hakim Plast refused without additional consideration. Brown refused to provide the requested consideration. Hakim Brown Machine Company, a division of Kvaerner U. S., Inc., entered into a contract to supply a machine and tools to Hakim Plast, a food container– producing company based in Cairo, Egypt, to enable Hakim to meet its growing demand for plastic containers. The plastic containers were for customers to use in the ice cream distribution industry. It was understood that the equipment would be ready for delivery before the busy summer ice cream season. Brown Machine was not able to meet the twice extended deadline. It attempted to obtain another extension, but Hakim Plast refused without additional consideration. Brown refused to provide the requested consideration. Hakim

 

5. The state of Alaska was a tenant in a large office building owned by Univentures, a partnership. The state made a lease payment of $ 28,143.47 to Univentures with state treasury warrant No. 21045102. Charles LeViege, the managing partner of Univentures, assigned the warrant to Lee Garcia. A dispute then arose among the Univentures partners, and the company notified the state that it should no longer pay LeViege the rent. The state placed a stop payment order on the warrant. Garcia claimed that he was a holder of a negotiable instrument and that the state owed him the money. The state claimed that a warrant did not qualify as a negotiable instrument. The warrant was in writing, was signed by the governor of the state, provided a definite sum of $ 28,143.47, and stated that “ it will be deemed paid unless redeemed within two years after the date of issue.” The warrant stated that it was “ payable to the order of Univentures.” Does the warrant meet the requirements for a negotiable instrument? [ National Bank v. Univentures, 824 P. 2d 1377 ( Alaska)]