Introduction
In the contemporary business world, cases of check bounce are common in many forms of transactions that are supported by legal frameworks. In most instances, it is hard to offer evidence to establish a criminal case with respect to issuance of bad checks. Nevertheless, when admissible evidence is brought out in a court of law, then defendants might be commanded to pay both civil and criminal penalties. From the case study, Alanoud is planning to sue Modern Furniture Inc. for failing to hand over a sofa to her as part of an agreement with her debtor, Yasser, to pay $35,000 out of the $4,000 debt. The company does not deliver the couch to Alanoud due to the fact that it realizes that the check has bounced. This report uses the IRAC method format to resolve the legal matter in the case study. The issue in the case is whether Alanoud has a legal obligation to sue the firm. The matter can be viewed with respect to good faith, which is contained in the Uniform Commercial Code and the Reinstatement of Contracts.
Rules
The second component of the IRAC method that should be addressed is in relation to legal conventions. State laws stipulate some penalties that should be paid by persons or organizations for writing bad checks. In this context, the first legal rule is that a firm should be notified when a check is written. Second, a person should write a check to a company when he or she is sure that his or her bank account holds sufficient finances. Third, in the event that a business organization realizes that the amount of a check is not supported by the balance in a bank account of the person making a payment, no goods should be delivered. Most jurisdictions in the US concentrate on reducing cases of bad checks. In fact, businesses can lose huge sums of money if they deliver products to buyers who write bad checks. In the case study, it appears that Alanoud is suing the firm for breach of contract, which could culminate in the delivery of the sofa. However, the issue of breach of contract is closely related to the bad check violation.
Analysis
From the rules above, it is important to examine the facts of the matter in the case study. Yasser promises to pay Alanoud part of $4,000 debt using a couch that would be delivered by Modern Furniture Inc. However, the check written by the debtor bounces and the firm does not deliver the product. It is within the provisions of the law to make a decision not to deliver goods whose payments do not materialize on the grounds of bad checks. In addition, people should sue firms for breach of contracts. In this context, however, Alanoud does not have an agreement with Modern Furniture Inc. In fact, it is only Yasser, who has contracted the company to buy the sofa.
Conclusion
Alanoud will most likely not prevail in a court of law due to the fact that she is not in agreement with Modern Furniture Inc. to deliver the product. From a legal perspective, the decision by the management to stop the delivery of the sofa is allowed. From another perspective, Yasser is legally responsible for the issue at hand for writing a bad check and a case against him would prevail in a court of law. He has not acted in good faith in writing the check. Alanoud, the claimant, should be advised that she would have no recourse under the law.