Question

Yost Corp., a computer manufacturer, contracted to sell 15 computers to Ivor Corp., a computer retailer. The contract specified that delivery was to be made by truck to Ivor's warehouse. Instead, Yost shipped the computers by rail. When Ivor claimed that Yost did not comply with the contract, Yost told Ivor that there had been a trucker's strike when the goods were shipped. Ivor refused to pay for the computers. Under these circumstances, Ivor:

A. is obligated to pay for the computers because Yost made a valid substituted performance.
B. may return the computers and avoid paying for them because the contract was void under the theory of commercial impracticability.
C. is obligated to pay for the computers because the title passed to Ivor when Ivor received them.
D. may return the computers and avoid paying for them because of the way Yost delivered them.

Answer 1

Answer: D. may return the computers and avoid paying for them because of the way Yost delivered them.

Explanation: In this case, Yost Corp. did not comply with the terms of the contract, which specified delivery by truck. Instead, Yost shipped the computers by rail. This breach of the contract may entitle Ivor to return the computers and avoid paying for them, as the contract's terms were not fulfilled. Although Yost provided a reason for the change in delivery method (the trucker's strike), it does not change the fact that they did not comply with the agreed-upon terms of the contract.

Answer 2

B because they voided the contract