Question

Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. designs and sells stuffed animals, including a stuffed kitty for children referred to as the “Lil Plum Kitty,” a realistic replica of a kitty that squeaks when it is squeezed. At a trade show in New York, Dawson Creek, the owner of Build-A-Bear, sold a quantity of the kitties to Lee North, the president of KNR Company. North asked Creek to design, make, and sell to KNR a larger version of the kitty with a motion sensor that would activate a “cat” sound. Creek agreed. Build-A-Bear delivered sixteen containers of the kitties, a number of which KNR resold to its customers. When some of the buyers complained that the kitties were defective, KNR had them repaired. KNR refused to pay Build-A-Bear for any of the kitties and wrote a letter claiming to revoke acceptance of them. KNR filed a suit in a federal district court against Build-A-Bear and others, alleging in part breach of contract, to which Build-A-Bear responded with a similar claim against KNR. Build-A-Bear argued that by resell­ing some of the kitties from the sixteen containers, KNR had accepted all of them and must pay.  In whose favor will the court rule? Discuss fully. Explain your answers! Must be at least 115 words.

Answer 1

The response will be in favour of Build a Bear company as it is KNR fault that the company should check all the kitties as the quantity of order is low so check for any defective pieces. Instead KNR sold those kitties without any checks to its consumers. After the consumer complaints KNR should have asked the Build a Bear company to replace them instead that the company repaired them. Thus it is the fault of the KNR company where he did not mention anything about defective items and simply said that he will not be paying for all the models which is not ethical as the KNR company has sold all the kitties to its customers. Thus KNR is trying to cheat the Build a Bear compan. Thus the verdict will be in favour of Build a Bear