1. No, the court would not be receptive to Carter’s sue for specific performance. Their contract of sale falls short to the principle that 18thcentury antique cello is unique and has no market substitute. The contract of sale is silent about the physical features and condition of the cello making it more general, thus, undermining its relative distinctiveness and rarity in the market. In addition, the efficiency of economic exchange is enhanced by technology through online shopping managed by internationally known companies such as EBay, Amazon.com, Google, etc. wherein most of them specialized as intermediary between sellers and buyers of hard-to-find products across country borders. As a result, historical, practical and conceptual reasons of deeming specific performance an extraordinary remedy apparently apply in this case. Historical basis suggest that equity rather law courts usually order someone to perform it. Practicality, on the other hand, prevents the court to sustain the case for excessive period of devoted time. And finally, conceptual reason submits to the principle that contracts have monetary value. All of these would then constitute to what is known efficient breach that does not necessarily mean that the bad (default) turned out to be better off than performance. This would rather serve stakeholders (the parties, the court and the society at large) to settle the case that is cost-effective in time, effort and resources within the principle of just and equality. In effect, the default party, Draper, would simply compel by the court to pay Carter with corresponding damages. The damages should reflect the market value of the object in question including transaction (internet charges/ delivery fees) and other adjudged costs.
2. In this case, Peter has the right to recover damages from Andy’s negligence that arise in the latter carelessness to protect the reputation of his employer in favor of self-vested interest (in this case, monetary) while performing his designated duty. The law discourages careless behavior so as to ensue occurrence of loss to the victim. As a result, it is deemed fair for the careless tortfeasor to bear the burden of the loss. Peter hired Andy to perform a particular task which has an economic goal of profitability possibly due to the latter basic or superior qualifications that is compensated by the provision of income. In effect, the former expects the latter to perform purchasing duties to the best interest of his business within the agency relationship that highly depends on the trust. However, in his performance, Andy seemingly neglected his primary duty of selecting goods in their relative quality or price serving the best interest for the employer rather settled alternatives that passed his own conditions. The core ideas to determine negligence are supported as agency relationship has professional and customary significance (reasonable care) and the consequence of agent’s act is conspicuous (foreseeable). Andy would not be hired to purchase a possibly thousand-dollar merchandise without behavioral and skill backgrounds. In this respect, recovery of damages seemed relevant to the present and future adverse effects of the negligence. The purchased products can be classified as sub-optimal merchandise causing quality to decline and less appreciated by customers. The bribe would also reproduce unethical practices against the employer to the detriment of his business opportunities which can be capitalized by competitors trickling down the happening to customers.