Question

A drugstore chain sued a sunglasses manufacturer for breach of contract, alleging that the manufacturer consistently supplied defective merchandise and then refused return of the items. The chain buyer testified that it cost the company $31,850.19 to procure the allegedly defective merchandise. The manufacturer objected and moved to strike, arguing that the chain was required to produce the original receipts for the sales. How should the court rule on the objection?

Answer 1

The Court should deny the manufacturer's motion to strike. The chain buyer's testimony regarding the cost to procure the defective merchandise is valid evidence for the breach of contract case.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Court should deny the manufacturer's motion to strike.

In this case, the drugstore chain is suing the sunglasses manufacturer for breach of contract. The chain buyer testified that it cost the company $31,850.19 to procure the allegedly defective merchandise. The manufacturer objected and moved to strike, arguing that the chain was required to produce the original receipts for the sales.

However, the court should rule that the manufacturer's objection is not valid. The chain buyer's testimony regarding the cost to procure the defective merchandise should be considered by the court as evidence. Original receipts may support the chain buyer's testimony, but they are not necessarily required to establish the breach of contract and the damages suffered by the drugstore chain.