CONTRACT FOR SALE OF GOODS

Agreement made and entered into this 02/04/2011, by and between Floshea Montgomery, of 765 Rawls Street Enterprise Alabama , herein referred to as "Seller", and [name of buyer] , of [address] [city] , [state] , herein referred to as "Buyer". Seller hereby agrees to transfer and deliver to buyer, on or before 02/10/2011 , the following goods: Nintendo Wii (Red) with two remotes and one game(wii sport) Buyer agrees to accept the goods and pay for them in accordance with the terms of the contract. Buyer and Seller agree that identification shall not be deemed to have been made until both parties have agreed that the goods in question are to be appropriated and fulfill the requirements of performance of said contract with the buyer. Buyer agrees to pay for the goods at the time they are delivered and at the place where he receives said goods. Goods shall be deemed received by buyer when delivered to address of buyer as herein described. Until such time as said goods have been received by buyer, all risk of loss from any causualty to said goods shall be on seller. Seller warrants that the goods are now free from any security interest or other lien or encumbrance, that they shall be free from same at the time of delivery, and that he neither knows nor has reason to know of any outstanding title or claim of title hostile to his rights in the goods. Buyer has the right to examine the goods on arrival and has 4 of days to notify seller of any claim for damages on account of the condition, grade or quality of the goods. That said notice must specifically set forth the basis of his claim, and that his failure to either notice seller within the stipulated period of time or to set forth specifically the basis of his claim will constitute irrevocable acceptance of the goods. This agreement has been executed in duplicate, whereby both buyer and seller have retained one copy each, on 02/05/2011 . __Floshea Montgomery ______________________________ [Signatures]

17.3 Yes Bob should be obligated to pay the interest on the subscription. The on-line agreement clearly states by clicking I agree that user is bound to the terms of the service. Marketing World held up their end of the contract by including this important information in the term an agreement. However, Bob failed to take time to read the terms & conditions before agreeing to them. Bob would be responsible for fees.

18.1 Fresher Food will not be able to recover because some contract must be written. Under the Statute of Fraud states that sales contracts for goods priced at $500 or more and requiring payment of $1,000 or more must be written in order to be enforceable. Fresher Foods was billed Vernon $1,125 which is over the limit for an oral contact to be enforceable.

18.4 The purchase order constituted the offer. The terms that was acceptance in the offer was the purchase price. The purchase order required the seller to supply all of JCIs requirements for the parts but gave the buyer the right to end the deal at anytime. UCC only requires that the contract states proper notice and this would be that the contact can be ended at any time.

18.6 I would say NO, under parol evidence the terms of the contract can not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or cotemporaneous oral agreement. The agreement that was made did not specify the amount of fish delivered instead the Griffiths assumed this would be the same amount of fish. However they failed including the exact weight of fish that would be delivered I dont feel the Griffiths will have very strong case.

36.1 Rulemaking is define as the actions undertaken by administrative agencies(FTC) that also includes notifying the public of proposed rules or changes and receiving and considering the public comment. FTC did give notice and does have the right to what is

defined as fair and unfair trading practices. Notice of rule making was given there is no law that is being violated here.

36.3 Yes, the facts of the case are the company moved Maureen to France as part of her employment that was originally in the United States. Now that Maureen has become pregnant she is being denied her SSI benefits. The subpoena requested to provide information about the benefits offered to employees living outside the U.S. which would pertain to Maureens case.