Question

The Brugger Corp. owned a farm, operated by Jason Weimer, who acted as the company’s business agent. Tri-Circle, Inc. was a farm equipment company. On behalf of Brugger, Weimer offered to buy from Tri-Circle certain equipment for use on the farm. Tri-Circle accepted the offer, using a pre-printed form. The form included a finance charge for late payment. Weimer’s offer had said nothing about finance charges, but he made no objection to the new term. Tri-Circle supplied the farm equipment but later alleged that Brugger had refused to pay for $12,000 worth of the supplies. Tri-Circle sued. In deciding whether Tri-Circle was entitled to finance charges, the court first inquired whether Brugger, Weimer, and Tri-Circle were merchants. Why did it look into that issue? Were they merchants?

Answer 1

1. To ascertain if the additional finance charges were legally binding.

2. Yes

Step-by-step explanation:

1. It is noteworthy that in law a contract between merchants are considered as not binding under certain specific rules or circumstances such as:

1. the offeror (Weimer) immediately objects to the additional finance charges terms.

2. the offerer (Tri-Cycle) insisted on its own terms.

3. the additional term materially alters the offer.

This circumstances did not occur as can be observed, thus making the additional terms legally binding on Brugger Corporation.

2. They are merchants since we are told they were into farm goods.