Facts
The court needs to decide on whether the matter will be arbitrated through the uniform commercial code or the common contract law. The uniform commercial code cannot be used to resolve the dispute between these two parties because it is only enforced in cases where goods are exchanged. Penn Lay feels that S. Li Ping has charged him an exorbitant rate for repairing his vehicle because he does not reside in Arizona. Ordinary contract law will be used to rule on this dispute because it involves sale of services between two parties. Lay feels aggrieved the company made him pay an unreasonable sum of money for repairs that were done on his vehicle.
Issue
The court needs to determine if a valid contract exists between Lay and the company. The court needs to establish if an offer was made, if it was accepted and if there was adequate consideration between the two parties regarding the transaction. Lay feels the rates charged for repairs were disproportionate to the nature of service offered by S. Li Ping. He feels that the company acted in a way that showed it did not have the intent to be bound by terms stipulated in their contract. In essence, Lay claims that he did not accept the company’s offer to perform repairs on his vehicle at the price he was charged.
Rule
Lay will have to demonstrate to the court that S. Li Ping made an offer before the repairs were done. He needs to reveal to the court if the offer stated the cost of service, time to be used to do the work and the nature of the work to be done. This will help the court assess if the company’s repair charges were fair or unfair according to prevailing market rates done for the similar work in the state. Lay did not accept the way the contract was performed and he claims the company breached their agreement. The court has to use common law as enforced in the state of Arizona to rule on the matter.
Compare and Contrast
S. Li Ping needs to show in its defense that it satisfied all obligations it was supposed to as outlined in the contract. The company can argue that it charges similar rates to all its clients without any regard to where they reside. Both parties need to show the nature of agreement they had and what each party was supposed to do to satisfy contract requirements. Lay needs to show that S. Li Ping’s actions were not considerate because they did not reflect the spirit of the agreement between them. He needs to show the company had made a promise which it failed to honor as stipulated by terms to their agreement.
Conclusion
The court needs to establish if Penn’s claims are true by focusing on the nature of the business transaction the two parties had. The court needs to establish if the exchange between the two parties was valuable and proportional according to the nature of work performed. It will also have to establish whether both parties agreed on how the contract was going to be performed before the repairs were done. This will enable the court to decide if the company needs to pay damages for breach of contract.