Case Study 1Erica entered into a contract to purchase a giant 72-inch television from Hometown Electronics, with delivery included in the purchase. Thus, Erica had a contract for goods and services in which the sale of the good predominates and is covered by Article 2 of the UCC (Business Law II, Week II, Nature and Form of Sales, 2014) (UCC - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002). If Erica had participated in a concurrent cash sale that did not require delivery, she would have taken possession of the goods at the time of sale (Twomey & Jennings, 2011, pp. 381, 539). This concurrent condition did not arise because Erica and Hometown Electronics had a verbal agreement to deliver the television to her home. Pursuant to Article 2 of the UCC, this subsequent condition is supported by the fact that Hometown Electronics acted on this condition as additional conditions of acceptance in attempting to deliver the television (Twomey & Jennings, 2011, pp. 380, 471) (UCC - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002)).The terms of delivery were FOB destination due to the subsequent condition upon which Hometown Electronics acted upon at the time of agreement regarding delivery. The third party to the contract, the delivery truck, had an accident while trying to deliver the television. Therefore, title to and responsibility for the goods passes to the third party (Twomey & Jennings, 2011, p. 497). Hometown Electronics is required to find a replacement television because the risk of loss has not passed to Erica until it arrives at her home (Twomey & Jennings, 2011, p. 505). Once delivery has been made, it is the responsibility of Hometown Electronics to require Erica to timely inspect the TV to ensure that there is no damage and that it is operating in accordance..... . middle of paper ......v. McDonald's Restaurants which is considered a frivolous lawsuit (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants). Works cited Business law II, Week II, Nature and form of sales. (2014). Retrieved March 31, 2014 from South Unversity Online: myeclassonline.comLiebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. (nd). Retrieved March 31, 2014 from Doc Stoc: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/113680900/Liebeck-v-McDonalds-RestaurantsTwomey & Jennings, . (2011). Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment, Complete Volume (22 ed.). South-Western College Publications.UCC - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002). (nd). Retrieved March 31, 2014, from Cornell University School of Law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2Zakary Kessel v. Stansfield Vending, Inc. (March 16, 2006). Retrieved March 31, 2014 from Justia US Law: http://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/court-of-appeals/2006/24501.html