NEW YORK LAW

The case in question is susceptible as it involves two individuals. The individuals are both involved in a trade contract whereby the plaintiff plans to conserve videos by saving them in digital tapes. Some of the options available[1]. First, the plaintiff seeks help from a dealer in videotapes recording who promises to help save the videos in tapes safely for future use. However, during the contract, the plaintiff’s receipt states that the defendant would not be answerable to any video lost in the due process. Besides, the contractual terms state that the defendant would only pay an amount of the same value as blank videotapes if any video were lost. The plaintiff fails to read the receipt terms and demands for a refund after the videos were lost as seen in the case Of Brandt V. Fitzpatrick.[2]

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH

To:  BLW 1030

Re:  lost videotapes case

The defendant is required by law to prove the following issues to avoid penalties associated with the conviction.

1. The videotapes were delivered in the defendant workshop
2. Warranties issued by the contractual terms were valid
3. The videos tapes were lost

The law relevant to this case is s2-401 of the New York trade laws.

The article deals with the contractual agreements of goods sales and services. The article is only applicable to situations where the contractual terms are followed during goods and services. The sales of goods and services involve transferring the particular good or services to different persons, as elaborated in article 2 of the New York constitution. The law also demands that the goods and services rendered are supposed to be of acceptable quality about the contractual terms and all obligations accomplished, as was in the United States V. Vaello Madero[3]. The law refers to termination as an action carried by either the contractual parties, especially to bring the contract into an end before the stipulated time. However, the contract may be canceled by the contractual parties, and the resultant consequences are the same as the ones for breach. The canceling party is privileged by the law to retain the balances underway during the execution. The issue may be sorted in small courts (peoples courts) since it is ideal for solving civil cases. However, the small courts lack the jurisdiction to rule over criminal cases. Ideally, the worth of the case must not be more than $5000 in terms of compensation. The case could be handled in the lowest level of the New York court system, legally bound to foreseeing such caliber cases.

New York consists of other courts that deal with different types of cases as far as case review is concerned. New York family courts are involved here and surrogates courts as well. The New York family courts are responsible for reviewing cases related to family issues and conflicts. Some of the cases may include termination of parental rights and violence. Divorce cases are also involved in family courts. The small courts could also come in in the cases associated with the breach of contract agreements[4]. Checks bounced, luggage lost, property, property use. The damage of vehicles could also be solved in the courts. Cases involving people who fail to make payments for services rendered to them could also be solved in the small courts, as was in Gundy V. United States[5]. The courts would not pass any charge to the defendant since due ignorance is observed on the plaintiff’s end. The plaintiff failed to read the contractual terms.

CONCLUSION

In this case, the defendant would successfully overturn the plaintiffs’ claims about article 2 of the New York law. The plaintiff acted with ignorance, and hence the defendant would not be answerable to the lost videotapes as was in the case of BRANDT v. FITZPATRICK.

[1] _S2-401 Of The New York Trade Laws

[2]  Brandt V. Fitzpatrick.

[3] United States V. Vaello Madero

[4] _Ibid

[5] Gundy V. United States.