Read the text below and answer the following question:

Spada, an Oregon corporation, agreed to sell Belson, who operated a business in Chicago, Illinois, two carloads of potatoes at "$4.40 per sack, FOB Oregon shipping point." Spada had the potatoes put aboard the railroad cars; however, he did not have floor racks used in the cars under the potatoes as is customary during winter months. As a result, there was no warm air circulating, and the potatoes were frozen while in transit. Spada claims that his obligations ended with the delivery to the carrier and that the risk of loss was on Belson.

What argument would you make for Belson?

1. State/define your rule of law.

2. Discuss how it applies to your response.

Belson can argue that Spada breached their contract by failing to properly pack the potatoes for shipment. The rule of law in this case is that when a seller is responsible for shipping goods, they have a duty to exercise reasonable care in their preparation for shipment.

Here, Spada did not use floor racks under the potatoes during winter months, resulting in the potatoes freezing. This failure to take necessary precautions breached Spada's duty of care.

To support Belson's argument, we can refer to the terms of the contract. The contract stated that the potatoes were to be shipped FOB (Free on Board) from Oregon. This means that Spada, as the seller, had the responsibility to properly pack the potatoes for shipment. Since Spada failed to do so and the potatoes were damaged as a result, the risk of loss should not fall on Belson, the buyer.

In conclusion, Belson can argue that Spada's failure to properly pack the potatoes breached their duty of care. This argument aligns with the rule of law that when a seller is responsible for shipping goods, they must exercise reasonable care in their preparation for shipment. Therefore, Spada should be held responsible for the damaged potatoes, not Belson.

To know more about breached visit:

https://brainly.com/question/30627650

#SPJ11