| Course | BUSI 2001 Business Law |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Peer response |
| Length | About 380 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 2001 Week 5
Week 5 Discussion: Does the Rule Cited Actually Govern?
Testing the Authority Behind Two Classmates' Conclusions: Hadley v. Baxendale Cited for Unlimited Lost Profits, and Article 2 of the UCC Cited for a Website Design Contract
Response to Monique
Monique, you concluded that the bakery can recover all the profit it lost when its oven repair company failed to show up for three days, about $9,000 in canceled orders, and you cited Hadley v. Baxendale for that point. I agree the repair company breached, but I think Hadley cuts the other way on damages.
In that case, a mill's shaft broke and a carrier delayed delivering it to the manufacturer, so the mill sat idle. The court held that the carrier was not liable for the mill's lost profits, because those losses were not ones that would arise naturally from the delay or that both parties would reasonably have had in mind at the time of contracting; nobody had told the carrier the mill would stop without the shaft (Hadley v. Baxendale, 1854). The rule limits consequential damages to losses that were foreseeable when the contract was made.
So the key fact is what the repair company knew. If the bakery told the dispatcher that every day without the oven would cancel wholesale orders, the lost profits may be recoverable. If it simply booked a routine repair, the company may owe only the direct cost of the delay. Do you know what the bakery said when it scheduled the repair?
Response to Derek
Derek, you treated a dispute over a late website redesign as an Article 2 sales case and concluded the client could reject the site as nonconforming goods. Article 2 governs sales of goods, meaning movable things. A website design contract is mainly for services: the designer's skill, time and work. Mallor et al. (2022) explain that when a contract mixes goods and services, courts look at its predominant purpose, and here very little, perhaps nothing, is a good.
If the common law of contracts applies instead, the analysis changes. The question becomes whether the designer's lateness was a material breach, one that defeats the essential purpose of the contract, which would let the client cancel, or a minor one, which would give only damages (American Law Institute, 1981). Was there a launch date in the contract that made timing essential?
References
American Law Institute. (1981). Restatement (second) of contracts.
Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341, 156 Eng. Rep. 145 (1854).
Mallor, J. P., Barnes, A. J., Bowers, L. T., & Langvardt, A. W. (2022). Business law: The ethical, global, and e-commerce environment (18th ed.). McGraw Hill.
What the BUSI 2001 Week 5 instructions ask for
In Week 5 you reply to two classmates by testing the authority behind their conclusions. For each, identify the source the classmate relied on, state what that source actually holds and decide whether it supports the classmate's point fully, partly or not at all. If it does not, explain which rule does apply and how it would change the analysis. Name the fact that would decide the question under the correct rule. Be specific and respectful; the goal is to strengthen the classmate's argument, not to score points. Write each reply so it makes sense even to someone who skipped the original post.
Inside the BUSI 2001 Week 5 example
The reply to Monique agrees that the repair company breached, then summarizes Hadley: a delayed mill shaft, a carrier that did not know the mill would sit idle and a court that refused lost profits the carrier could not have foreseen. It concludes that the bakery's lost wholesale orders are recoverable only if the dispatcher knew each day without the oven would cancel orders, and it asks Monique what was said when the repair was booked. The reply to Derek explains that Article 2 covers movable goods, so a website design falls under the common law, where the question becomes whether the delay was a material breach, citing the Restatement. Each reply ends with a question.
Reading the BUSI 2001 Week 5 rubric
Peer responses are rewarded for real engagement with what a classmate argued and cited. A reply that only agrees, or criticizes without explaining, earns little. Strong replies state what the cited authority actually holds, test it against the classmate's claim and supply the correct rule where the authority falls short. Identifying the decisive fact, the one that would change the answer, shows real understanding. Replies should be accurate about the cases; misdescribing Hadley or the reach of Article 2 undercuts the reply. Tone counts: a reply that helps the classmate improve the post meets the course's expectations for professional discussion. Each reply should cite at least one source.
BUSI 2001 Week 5 help from the desk
Before replying, look up the source your classmate cited and read what it actually decided. Ask whether that holding answers the classmate's question or a different one. Damages cases are often cited for more than they say; Article 2 is often applied to services. If the source fits only partly, say which part holds and which does not. Then name the rule that does apply and the single fact that would settle the question. Weak replies say "great post" or disagree without a reason. Others correct the classmate but never explain what to do instead. Share the classmate posts you need to answer, and we can draft a model reply for either one. Three or four short paragraphs per reply give the classmate something usable.
Get a BUSI 2001 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send the classmate's post, the reply prompt, and the rubric the section grades replies against, and one worked BUSI 2001 reply returns within 24-48 hours, free the first time. The thread quoted above is invented for illustration; what comes back engages the actual post you paste, since a reply has no content apart from the argument it answers.
More BUSI 2001 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- BUSI 2001 Week 1: Legal Question Discussion Post
- BUSI 2001 Week 2: Lucy v. Zehmer Case Brief
- BUSI 2001 Week 3: Issue-Spotting Inventory
- BUSI 2001 Week 4: Non-Compete Rule Restatement
- BUSI 2001 Week 6: Non-Compete Application Memo
- BUSI 2001 Week 7: Services Agreement Clause Reading
- BUSI 2001 Week 8: Six-Citation Source Audit
- BUSI 2001 Week 9: Opposing Argument and Response
- BUSI 2001 Week 10: Gateway Case Comparison
- BUSI 2001 Week 11: Contractor Classification Memo
- BUSI 3010 Week 5: Calculation Check Peer Replies
- BUSI 3014 Week 5: Measure Fit Peer Replies
- BUSI 3016 Week 5: Figure-to-Decision Peer Replies
- BUSI 4002 Week 5: Disconfirming Evidence Peer Replies
BUSI 2001 Week 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free BUSI 2001 Week 5 sample paper?
Both replies, to Monique and to Derek, are available here in full at no cost.
Why does Hadley v. Baxendale not support all of the bakery's lost profit?
Because the case limits damages to losses that arise naturally or that both parties had in mind when they contracted.
What fact decides the bakery's claim?
Whether the repair company knew that each day without the oven would cancel the bakery's wholesale orders.
Why does Article 2 not govern a website design contract?
Article 2 covers sales of goods, meaning movable things, and a design contract is mainly a sale of services.
How does the analysis change under the common law?
The question becomes whether the designer's delay was a material breach that lets the client cancel or a minor one that only allows damages.