Question

Owens Inc. was a business that sought revenue by buying coffee beans from producers in Latin American countries, and then packaging and distributing the beans in the U.S. To maximize profits, Owens Inc. bought both the highly reputed Arabica beans and the cheaper Robusta beans. Owens Inc. would often mix the Robusta with the Arabica beans, but advertise the coffee beans as pure Arabica beans. This would allow Owens Inc. to benefit from the higher market prices of the rarer Arabica coffee. Starbucks entered into a ten-year contract with Owens Inc. to buy their marketed Arabica beans. However, on further inspection, Starbucks discovered that Owens Inc. had been misrepresenting the quality of their coffee beans. Consequently, Starbucks sought to terminate their contract with Owens Inc. A U.S. district court heard their case, and the court found that their contract lacked legal assent, and that Owens Inc. was required to pay for damages, including the money Starbucks had spent on Owens’s coffee beans.
But what if the facts of the case were different? Select each set of facts below that could change the power of that court to hear the case. You can choose more than one.

A.) Instead of Owens’ diluting the quality of Arabica coffee beans, the producers that supplied Owens with coffee beans had laced the Arabica beans with Robusta, but marketed them to Owens as pure Arabica. Owens had no knowledge that this had occurred, and Starbucks still discovered that the Arabica beans were impure.

B.) Starbucks had been informed by Owens that Owens had laced its marketed Arabica coffee beans with Robusta beans.

C.) Owens intended to deceive Starbucks as well as other companies with whom it conducted business.

D.) Rather than Owens’ lacing the Arabica coffee beans with Robusta beans, the producers that supplied Owens with coffee beans had mixed
their Arabica beans with Robusta beans, and marketed them to Owen as pure Arabica. However, the court found that Owens could have
discovered that this was occurring by using reasonable care.

Answer 1

Answer:

D.) Rather than Owens’ lacing the Arabica coffee beans with Robusta beans, the producers that supplied Owens with coffee beans had mixed

their Arabica beans with Robusta beans, and marketed them to Owen as pure Arabica. However, the court found that Owens could have

discovered that this was occurring by using reasonable care.

and

B.) Starbucks had been informed by Owens that Owens had laced its marketed Arabica coffee beans with Robusta beans

Explanation:

First wee need to understand what is reasonable care. "Is the degree of caution and concern for the safety of the self and others and ordinarily prudent and rational person would use in the same circumstances".

Unlike Neglicence where is a failure to act reasonable and carefully.

In this case Owens didn´t know, however they failed to provide resonable cause. But he act with concern telling starbucks what happened, but still he is held for damages.