I need 750 words in Pantastic Pizza in business law assignment

I have a business law assignment

Answer in 250 words for each question.  

three questions assignment to answer in specific formula : 

1.Tammie contracted with Kristine to manufacture, sell, and deliver to Kristine and put in running order a certain machine. After Tammie set up the machine and put it in running order, Kristine found it unsatisfactory and notified Tammie that she rejected the machine. She continued to use it for three months but continually complained of its defective condition. At the end of the three months, she notified Tammie to come and get it. Has Kristine lost her right (a) to reject the machine? (b) to revoke acceptance of the machine? Explain. 

2.Smith, having contracted to sell to Beyer thirty tons of described fertilizer, shipped to Beyer by carrier thirty tons of fertilizer that he stated conformed to the contract. Nothing was stated in the contract as to time of payment, but Smith demanded payment as a condition of handing over the fertilizer to Beyer. Beyer refused to pay unless he was given the opportunity to inspect the fertilizer. Who is correct? Explain. 

3.Bain ordered from Marcum a carload of lumber, which he intended to use in the construction of small boats for the U.S. Navy, pursuant to contract. The order specified that the lumber was to be free from knots, wormholes, and defects. The lumber was shipped, and immediately on receipt, Bain looked in the door of the fully loaded car, ascertained that there was a full carload of lumber, and acknowledged to Marcum that the carload had been received. On the same day, Bain moved the car to his private siding and sent to Marcum full payment in accordance with the terms of the order. 

.......................................................................................................................................................................................

Attachment 1:

HOMEWORK FORMAT

 
A: Answer the Question asked.  

 
I: Issue(s): Identify the legal issue presented in the problem.  

 
LC: State the legal concept involved in the legal issue. Include the elements of the legal concept.  

 
D: Short discussion to support your answer. Support your answer by combining the elements of the legal concept with the operative facts in the problem.  

 
SAMPLE PROBLEM  

 
Pantastic Pizza, L.L.C. is in the business of selling, you guessed it, pantastic pizza to the general public. Pantastic Pizza, L.L.C. has both pick-up and delivery. Pantastic Pizza, L.L.C. employs numerous delivery people, including Crash Carson, to deliver pizza to the customer’s home or place of business. Crash is a student at The University and has no visible means of support or other assets. On July 4, 2004 Carol Customer called Pantastic Pizza, L.L.C. to order a Deluxe Supreme for home delivery. Crash was the delivery person on duty when Carol’s pizza was ready for delivery. Crash left Pantastic Pizza, L.L.C. with Carol’s pizza, and while driving to Carol’s home following the most direct route to her home, ran a stop sign and collided with a vehicle being operated by Vallery Victim. Due to the force of the collision Vallery was severely injured and her car totaled. Vallery files a lawsuit seeking to recover for her damages against Crash Carson and Pantastic Pizza, L.L.C. Can Vallery recover against Pantastic Pizza, L.L.C.  

 
A.: Yes, Vallery can maintain a successful lawsuit against Pantastic Pizza, L.L.C. and recover for her damages.  

 
I.: Is an employer responsible for the negligent torts of an employee when the employer is not negligent.  

 
L.C.: The legal concept involved in this problem is respondent superior or “Let the Master Answer.” Elements  

 
1. Negligence committed by employee; 2. During the course of employment; 3. Within the scope of employment.  

 
D: The legal concept of respondent superior provides that under the proper set of facts an employer can be held liable for the negligent acts of its employees. The elements that must be present for respondent superior to apply and make the employer liable are:  

  1) Negligence by the employee. Here Crash ran a stop sign and as a result struck

Vallery’s vehicle, injuring Vallery and damaging her car. 2) Employee must be acting within the scope of his employment. Crash’s job duties included delivery of pizzas by car so he was acting within the scope of his employment. 3) Employee must be acting in the course of his employment. At the time of the collision Crash was traveling on the most direct route to the customer’s house.