Academic Master

Business and Finance

Cabinet Co Case Study


Student’s name

Institution’s name



The provided case study revolves around Frank and casters shipments he received. Most of the remedies and revocations are incorporated with the underlying critical facts of the case itself. Evidently, Frank is the supervisor and responsible for collecting and managing the dock matters for the employer; Cabinet Co. Cabinet Co. is a business that deals with the metallic storage cabinets. Frank’s job description includes inspection and supervising as well as the storage of raw materials and other relevant inventories that further used in the production of cabinets. After examination and safely storing the stocks and materials, Frank is also responsible for notifying to the accounting department so they could release the payment for the components received. Everything was operating smoothly with Cabinets Co. until 1st June when the company got the delivery of casters that was ordered to be used for rolling cabinets, and their distribution was not expected for about three weeks. The dilemma appears when Frank realizes that the storage location for the casters is going through the renovation process and therefore there was not an appropriate place to keep the casters until 20th of June.

For this reason, Frank opts a covered and secured place in the corner of the delivery dock to place the unopened boxes of casters (without inspection). Frank informed accounting department about the receiving of casters shipment, and they released the payment of about 8,000 dollars. However, the whole deal turned upside down when after 20 days Frank inspects the cargo and found a whole lot of defected and useless casters. This unfortunate negligence cost Cabinet Co. to encounter default on a myriad of contracts for delivering rolling caster-based cabinets. Moreover, Cabinet Co. was capable of reinstating the defected casters by incurring a high cost by 15%. The following paper highlights other key facts and legal implications, remedies as well as obligations of Cabinet Co. with the respect of defected casters according to the situation.


Evaluation of the critical facts along with the underlying principle of law establishes that Respondeat Superior Doctrine and Federal Law both guard the rights of Cabinet Co and Caster Company and allow them to track the damages. Furthermore, a legal code that is known as Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides several rights and remedies to revoke the contract, or to have recovery amount as an award, from the breach of contract. However, the condition applied that emphasizes on the evidences of the innocence and indeliberate mistake of Frank.


In the following, a brief description of Cabinet Co. case are ascribed that will give a better insight regarding legal remedies and other interrelated matters.

  • Frank’s job is to inspect the delivered materials as well as stocking them carefully. Therefore, the storage of unchecked caster boxes is clear negligence of Frank from his job responsibilities.
  • Renovation of the storage facility is not an excuse at all because Frank has an alternative secured and covered place to keep the casters. And he should have instructed his subordinates to check the workability of received shipment before notifying the accounting department.
  • Legally, Cabinet Company and the Casters Company that delivered the defective casters’ shipments are lawfully bounded by contract and law provides rights as well as obligations to both parties.
  • Cabinet Co. can claim revocation of the deal by asserting a breach of contract by the sellers of casters meanwhile the sellers can claim remedies by highlighting the negligence and irresponsible behavior of Frank.
  • Both parties (Cabinet Company and Caster Company) have legal considerations to save their faces.
  • Uniform Commercial Code provides rights to the buyers; on the other hand, Respondent Superior Doctrine questions the validity of Frank’s action of delaying inspection by 20 days.



Cabinet Co can use the rule of revocation of Acceptance that can be implied on the buyer’s behalf. A buyer can turn down the offering products or service through rejection or cancellation. In some cases rejection takes place, but it occurs before a buyer accepts the product. On the other hand, revocation occurs where the buyer has already provided the approval toward the goods. In such unique cases, Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) allows buyers a specific right to revoke the acceptance that is applicable in one of the following situations

  1. Initially, buyer approved products that are non-conforming and provide feasible assumptions that seller party would restore the subject non-conforming through immediate action.
  2. Or initially, buyer failed to detect the non-conformity and accepted the goods. Such cases can take place either due to the lack of discovering efforts or exaggerated reassurance of sellers.

According to Bagley (2013) UCC attempts to crop a non-breaching fragment similarly, it would do if the agreement had been accomplished. Such practices are conducted through a specific and determined award of the number of damages. In the case of given situation of Cabinets Co., a few remedies on behalf of buyers are subject be addressed. Apparently, if a seller by any mean fails to provide the ordered goods or renounces the contract or a buyer rightfully discards the contracted products, then the legal UCC’s section 2-711 gives multiple options to the buyers. A buyer in either situation can cancel the buying contract and can ask for the recovery of already paid price, and in this case buyer can either:

  1. Buy or cover the product from somewhere else and can ask for reimbursement for the additional cost of acquiring the alternative commodity.
  2. Or buyer can recuperate damages for non-delivery of goods.

The case study of Cabinet Co. affirms that casters were delivered before the expected date and were unusable and defected. However, due to some technical reasons (and of course negligence of Frank) casters inspected about 20 days after their delivery date. At the point of inspection, Cabinet Co realized that the delivered casters do not match with the standard of contracted formalities. And therefore Cabinet Co; as the buyer can decide to seek legal remedies and ask the sellers to discuss the possible recovery of damages and can claim for compensation for their loss.

For this purpose, Cabinet Company has to establish good faith, and in due course, the buyer has to avoid any logical stoppage as well as rational buying of alternative materials or casters. Through the proper legal procedures, a buyer then can seek the recovery from sellers regarding the difference between contract cost and cost of restoration. Apparently, the estimation of direct damages is calculated by subtracting the actual contract price from the market price. The market price is considered when the buyer comprehends the breach of the agreement. The very law of UCC allows a buyer with the permission to recover any damages incurred due to the violation of the contract. Such costs may include:

  • Any subsequent loss that takes place from standard or specific necessities and requirements of the buyer that seller party had caused to realize at the time of contact and could not logically avoid the cover.
  • Or any subsequent damage, loss or injury to an individual or property or asset that caused by the breach of contract or warranty. It happens with 15% increased cost for Cabinets Company.


Caster Company as sellers has a few rights in the mentioned case because there are chances of Frank’s negligence toward his responsibilities. However, before granting any rights to the Casters Company, it is necessary to consider Respondeat superior doctrine. The doctrine of Respondeat Superior that is translated as “let the master answer,” refers that a part is legally responsible and entitled of vicarious liability for the practices and actions of their allocated agents. The very doctrine implies the Employer Liability in Intentional Acts.

However, determining the employer’s liability for the practices of an agent is comparatively easy but deciding the intentional acts is a bit blurry. In case, Frank’s negligence proved to be deliberate than Caster Company can utilize their rights against any revocation and can deny any reimbursement. Therefore, it is imperative to determine whether the Frank did that intentionally or the negligence was an inadvertent incident. In case of any deliberation, courts will hold Frank responsible for all the damages caused throughout the contract. While considering the intentional motifs; a few general points are subject to underlying concern:

  • Was the action done when the employee was on the job; during job timings?
  • Was the subject act was included in the employee’s job responsibilities?
  • Was the agent encouraged to carry out the subject act on purpose to attain any benefits from employer or second party?


The case study of Cabinet Company and defective delivery of casters by Caster Company and inattention of Frank involve several legal remedies and issues to consider. To carry out any legal proceeding, it is indispensable to delve deeper into the matter to make it clear if Cabinet Company is entitled to have a recovery for monetary damages from Casters Company. By analyzing the above-provided case issues, key facts, and legal matters, it is evident that Cabinet Company has to deal with a myriad of difficulties to claim for any reimbursement. Cabinet Company has initially accepted the goods, and some probable delay in feedback, impedes the efficacy of their legal claim. Frank was responsible for supervising the entire process, and he did not pay close attention and caused a big jolt to the performance of Cabinet Company by neglecting his job-based responsibilities.

In the given state of circumstances, Cabinet Company and Casters Company both have law principles that can be applied. Cabinet company has Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and Federal Law about contract breach. UCC, in turn, allows Cabinet Company with the right of revocation of acceptance of casters in certain conditions. On the other hand, Caster Company has a substantial counter agreement that is supported by Respondeat Superior Doctrine and can benefit the Caster Company against the recovery of damages claimed by Cabinet Company. Frank has strong chances to be stuck with the legal proceedings if applied the Respondeat Superior Doctrine rule. Because he does not have any significant proofs to declare his innocence and therefore there are substantial chances for Caster Company to win the game. The practical solution, for Cabinet Company is to cut their losses and try to learn from this err and avoid any such occurrence in prospect. Moreover, it is recommended for the Cabinet Company to investigate the reason for all the hullaballoo to prevent hassle again.


Kaplan, J., Weisberg, R., & Binder, G. (2017). Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. New York:
Wolters Kluwer.

Bagley, C. E. (2016). Managers And The Legal Environment: Strategies for the 21st century.
Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.



Calculate Your Order

Standard price





Pop-up Message