solved Discussion Part 1undefinedFilbert’s Meat Shop, LLC shipped to Sonic Taco,

Discussion Part 1undefinedFilbert’s Meat Shop, LLC shipped to Sonic Taco, a company based in Yuma, Arizona, an order of chorizo and machaca beef. That same day, Filbert’s mailed an invoice for the order for $11,000, based on the understanding that an oral contract existed between the parties, whereby Sonic Taco had agreed to pay for the meat. Sonic Taco was engaged in the real estate business at this time and had earlier been approached by Filbert’s Meat to discuss that company’s real estate investment potential. Sonic Taco denied ever guaranteeing payment for the meat and raised the Uniform Commercial Codes Statute of Frauds, Section 2-201, as an affirmative defense. Filbert’s Meat Shop contended that because Sonic Taco was in the business of buying and selling real estate, they possessed knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices involved in the transaction here. After hearing the evidence, the court concluded as a matter of law that Sonic Taco did agree to pay for the meat and was liable to Filbert’s Meat Shop in the amount of $11,000. Sonic Taco appealed.undefinedIn your discussion post, address the following questions:undefinedIs this a case governed by the UCC?If it was under common law, is the result different than the UCC?How should the appeals court rule?undefinedDiscussion Part 2undefinedJanice has been invited to appear on a home improvement show for the remodel of her summerhouse in Maine. Janice asks Mary to wallpaper her house in anticipation of the home improvement, and requests expensive custom wallpaper and a very intricate design application, for which the wallpaper would cost $5000, plus labor. Mary, excited for a very large job for her solo business, orders the intricate wallpaper and blocks off her calendar for the amount of time it will take to complete the job. After the paper has been ordered, Mary asks some friends to be available to complete the job in time for the show. Janice is informed that she will not be on the show and notifies Mary that she will not need the wallpaper. undefinedIn your discussion post, address the following questions:undefinedDoes Mary have a case for reimbursement?Under what legal theory might she prevail and what are her damages, if any?What ethical theories might be applicable?undefinedYour initial response should be a minimum of 400 words for each discussion.