× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
w
5
a
3
j
2
a
2
t
2
u
2
r
2
j
2
j
2
l
2
d
2
y
2
Home Q & A Board Other Fields Homework Help Business
New Topic  
may129 may129
wrote...
Go to Answer
Posts: 624
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 incorrect about trade usage regarding market size so Griffith had no an obligation to grow larger fish to be in compliance with the contract
  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 56 times
1 Reply
Replies
Answer verified by a subject expert
freememberfreemember
wrote...
#1
Posts: 226
Rep: 1 0
6 years ago
Sign in or Sign up in seconds to unlock everything for free
1

Related Topics

may129 Author
wrote...

6 years ago
Correct Slight Smile TY
wyq2651
wrote...

Yesterday
This calls for a celebration Person Raising Both Hands in Celebration
jodie1
wrote...

2 hours ago
Smart ... Thanks!
New Topic      
Quick Reply
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  1436 People Browsing
Start New Topic Take the Tour CoursesNew Study Tools Topics Trending Browse by Textbook
Related Images
  
 7578
  
 209
  
 683
Your Opinion
Who will win the 2024 president election?
Votes: 119
Closes: November 4
Previous poll results: Does a gender wage gap exist in America?