× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
L
3
d
3
y
3
a
3
n
3
d
3
e
3
d
3
c
3
p
3
M
3
a
3
Home Q & A Board Humanities Legal Studies
New Topic  
kylieaglee kylieaglee
wrote...
Go to Answer
Posts: 633
Rep: 0 0
6 years ago
In Griffith v. Clear Lakes Trout, Griffith grew trout for Clear Lakes; the parties got into a dispute over what were market size trout, as Clear Lakes wanted larger fish. The court held that:
 a. since the contract between the parties was vague about trout size, there was no enforceable contract
  b. Clear Lakes was correct about trade usage regarding market size so Griffith had an obligation to grow larger fish and be in compliance with the contract
  c. Clear Lakes was correct about trade usage regarding market size and Griffith had been delivering undersized fish, so Griffith needed to compensate Clear Lakes for the price change
  d. Clear Lakes had underpaid for the trout given current market prices, so owed Griffith damages equal to the market price versus the price paid
  e. none of the other choices
Read 55 times
1 Reply
Replies
Answer verified by a subject expert
erinharriserinharris
wrote...
#1
Posts: 222
Rep: 0 0
6 years ago
Sign in or Sign up in seconds to unlock everything for free
1

Related Topics

kylieaglee Author
wrote...

6 years ago
This calls for a celebration Person Raising Both Hands in Celebration
brina10
wrote...

Yesterday
this is exactly what I needed
logbi
wrote...

2 hours ago
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
New Topic      
Quick Reply
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  1305 People Browsing
Start New Topic Take the Tour CoursesNew Study Tools Topics Trending Browse by Textbook
Live Chat
Related Images
  
 202
  
 1607
  
 96
Your Opinion
Do you believe in global warming?
Votes: 423
Previous poll results: What's your favorite coffee beverage?