Preventive Law: Bernard Baker vs. James W.Ratzlaff (Case Study Sample)

Name
Instructor
Course
Date of submission
Preventive Law: Bernard Baker vs. James W.Ratzlaff
Part 1
The legal dispute involves two parties; Bernard Baker of the Baker Popcorn Company (Plaintiff) and the James W. Ratzlaff (Defendant). The appellate court reviewed judgment passed by the district court and upheld the ruling made.
The two parties entered into a contract whereby the plaintiff was to provide popcorn seeds to the defendant at an agreed price (Baker v Ratzlaff). Defendant was required to shell and deliver the popcorn to the plaintiff’s premises, which was his plant in Salford. The plaintiff was to purchase the popcorn from the defendant at $4.75 per hundredweight.
According to the contract, if Baker failed or refuses to pay the defendant, then the undelivered popcorn would be disposed of off by the defendant in any way he likes. Other terms of the contract concerned the quality of popcorn to delivered and interest that plaintiff would pay on the popcorn that was stored by the defendant from the time of harvest to delivery.
Plaintiff’s arguments
The plaintiff disagrees with the district court’s computation of damages, as recorded in Baker v Ratzlaff (s289). He argues that, for the purpose of establishing the correct damages due to him, the district court had refused to consider the fluctuation of popcorn market price that was between $10.50 and 20.00 per hundred weight. Therefore, the defendant felt, he was supposed to receive much more than $52,000 as compensation. He had to pay $10.30 for some replacement popcorn, an amount that was $5.55 higher than that in the terminated contract.
Defendant’s arguments
He finds that the district court was wrong to admit evidence that was outside the contract agreement. Ratzlaff argues that the trial court was wrong in ruling that he [the defendant] erred in terminating the contract. The defendant states that he was in no obligation of good faith in terminating the agreement Baker v Ratzlaff (s.288). He further argues that even if he was under any such obligation, he terminated the contract in good faith. He proceeded to maintain his stand on the good faith obligation that in terminating a contract, it [the obligation of good faith] is not performance or enforcement of a contract.
Court’s legal reasons for its decisions
In response to the defendant’s issue that the trial court erred in considering evidence extrinsic to the agreement, the appellate court cited K.S.A. 60-404 (288). This case provided that erroneous admission of evidence shall not cause a verdict to be set aside or a ruling reversed. Concerning the defendant’s claim that he was wrong to terminate the case based on the obligation of good faith, as appears in Baker v Ratzlaff, the court cited K.S.A 84-1-203. (s.288). The ruling here was that every contract in that act imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement. The "unconscionability" concept argued by the defendant was struck down. The appellate court found that the provision in the contract which permitted termination upon failure to pay on delivery was subject to various interpretations.
In the computation of damages to the plaintiff, the court held that the difference between contract and market price when the plaintiff learned of defendant’s nondelivery was correct and cited K.S.A. 84-2-713 (s.290). I agree with the court’s final ruling that fair compensation was awarded and that the defendant’s presentations were struck down, with clear references to earlier related rulings.
Part 2
Having analyzed the appellate court’s decision, I find that it was largely fair. The record, however, seems to have given a limited account of the proceedings at the district court. Plaintiff had argued to the appellate court that extrinsic evidence to the contract had been admitted to the trial court. The major downside of this record is its’ failure to give an account of the said evidence. Its presentation in this account would have an effect, although not major on my overall view of the appellate court final decision.
Another instance where this record has failed in giving full information is where the plaintiff faults the district court in awarding him proper compensation arising out of the termination of the contract by the defendant. The record does not show any offers of evidence by the plaintiff to establish the market fluctuation price of $10.50 to $20.00 (s.289) The court was, however, right because, whereas compensation was rightfully due to the plaintiff, it had to be such that he only benefits to the extent to which he had suffered loss. The plaintiff paid $10.30 for the replacement popcorn, $5.55 higher than what he would have paid had the defendant not terminated the contract. The plaintiff was seeking higher compensation based on fluctuating market price but the court rightfully based it [compensation] on the actual price he paid for replacement popcorn.
In reviewing this case, I find that the defendant could be excused for desiring a higher return for his popcorn since it is the ordinary nature of businesspeople to work for profit. I have observed that the defendant was nonappreciative of the fact that the plaintiff would provide the popcorn seed and make orders. The contract was relatively attractive to both parties until Ratzlaff realized that he could make more profit if he sold the popcorn to some other buyer. The contract he had entered into with Baker had lost its attractiveness, and he devised a means through which to free himself from it. He, therefore, terminated it on the fact that Baker had not paid him for two deliveries made earlier. The termination was wrong as one can clearly read malice in its execution. Baker made payments as soon as he received notice of the termination. Although the defendant accepted the payment, he had already terminated the agreement and sold popcorn to another buyer.
This dispute would be prevented if the defendant had adhered to t...