I have completed the work. Kindly confirm the work and let me know if you need something to be fixed. I also uploaded an outline. I bold the questions in the document for you to see them clearly.
Running head: OUTLINE
1. Hornbuckle purchased equipment from Continental Gin (CG) for $6,300. However,
after some of the equipment proved defective, Hornbuckle sent CG a check for $4,000
marked “by endorsement this check is accepted in full payment,” and CG endorsed and
deposited the check. May CG force Hornbuckle to pay the remaining $2,300? Why?
In this case, CG may not force the Hornbuckle to pay the remaining $2,300 because some
of the equipment purchased were proved defective. Endorsement as applied in the law of
negotiation, Hornbuckle is the payee who signed his name to the back of the check in order to
make the check payable to another. Since some of the equipment purchased by the Hornbuckle
were defective, Hornbuckle exercised its responsibility to purchase the equipment in good
condition and deduct the amount of money paid through check for the defective equipment
(Kuchhal, 2013). CG cannot force Hornbuckle to pay the remaining $2,300 because both parties
reached a negotiation through endorsement. Another reason why CG may not force Hornbuckle
to pay the remaining cash is because the Hornbuckle sent CG a check marked by endorsement
and CG approved the check as a total payment for the equipment. CG made a decision to accept
$4,000 as full payment and deposited the check. This implies that an offer was made by
Hornbuckle and CG accepted the offer by signing and depositing the check. The issue could rise
if CG failed to endorse and deposit the amount provided by Hornbuckle. It is impossible for CG
to reverse the case or present a statement of claims in a court of law. The reason is that the
document shows their agreement and forcing Hornbuckle to pay the remaining $2,300 may be
considered a breach of contract.
2. Joseph Hoffman alleged that Red Owl Stores pro...