COMM 393 Study Guide - Final Guide: Syncrude, Forum Selection Clause, Estoppel
Document Summary
Tulsa used equitable estoppel to defend against the claim that they had to use seamless: bkdk holdings ltd v. 692831 bc ltd, use liberal approach to interpret the agreement to reveal the intent of the parties. 2) merchantability (not good for any purpose), 3) durability (for a reasonable period): must 1) communicate 2) rely on expertise 3) normally deal with goods. Could not prove any of these, so kobelt was not liable and did not breach an implied condition of the. Kobelt is then entitled to the outstanding invoice: kovacs v. holtom, title and risk transfer. Therefore, the buyer had to bear the costs of the loss: dawe v. cypress bowl. The only reasonable justification that the exclusion clause wouldn"t apply is a fundamental breach of contract, and that the workable nature of the good was not there anymore. Porelle had repaired the engine so it was workable, and therefore.
