Reference no: EM133357875

Question: Using the IRAC method for answering the following questions:

In the Action by Alexis against Craig answer the following in detail, Is Alexis likely to succeed in her action against Craig?

If Alexis is successful I her action against Craig, what damages may she properly recover?

Case Study: Scott has operated a marina on Lake Huron for several years. The marina sells boats and provides a dock space and winter boat storage to its customers. On August 1, 2014 Craig purchased the marina from Scott. As part of the sale, Craig took over all the existing contracts Scott had for the storage and docking of boats. Nick had a contract with Scott to store his boat at the marina over the winter and to rent dock space as the marina during the boating season. The contract was due to expire on March 31, 2015. When Nick went to the marina on October 1, 2014 to arrange to have his boat removed from the water and placed into storage for the winter, he learned that the marina had been sold. Craig told him that he would be willing to renew Nick's contract for dock space for the period of April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 at the same price he had paid in 2014, if Nick would agree immediately. Nick orally agreed. Thereafter, on March 1, 2015, Nick notified Craig that he had graduated from Northwood University and was moving his boat to another marina on Lake Erie which would be closer to his new job. He had arranged to have his boat towed to the new marina. Craig demanded that Nick pay him for the dock space and storage for 2015-2016, claiming that he and Nick had an enforceable contract. Nick refused to pay. In the spring of 2015, Craig hired Paul to replace all of the docks at the marina. Although the contact specified that the dock's top surface decking would be made of pressure treated wood, Paul used a composite material which was visually indistinguishable from the pressure-treated wood. The material used was comparably prices to pressure treated wood, and had comparable properties, including strength, slip and rot resistance, longevity, and maintenance requirements. When the work was completed Craig refused to pay Paul, claiming Paul had not performed in accordance with the contract. Paul commenced an action against Craig to recover damages for breach of contract. In preparation for stocking his showroom, Craig called Alexis a distributor of boats on March 15, 2015 to order a Starcraft Superfisherman 186 boat. Alexis told Craig that the boat would cost $36,700 plus shipping. Craig told Alexis to ship the boat. The same day, Alexis confirmed the order in a fax to Craig that specified that a Starcraft Superfisherman 186 boat would be shipped to Craig for delivery on or before April 15, 2015, at a price of $36,700 plus shipping costs. Craig received the fax, but did not respond. On April 1, 2015, Craig discovered he could buy a Starcraft Superfisherman 186 boat from Rebecca, another distributor for $35,000 which included shipping charges. He immediately called Alexis and cancelled the order for the boat. Two weeks later, Alexis, who had a large inventory of Starcraft Superfisherman 186 boats, sold the boat she had planned to deliver to Craig to Stuart, another customer for $36,700 plus shipping charges. Alexis has started a lawsuit against Craig for breach of contract. Craig has answered raising the defense of the statute of frauds.