2 questions each one on them no less than 250 wards

1- Requirements Contracts. Medalist Golf, Inc., a high-end golf course builder, was working on a new golf course project in Missouri. Chris Williams, doing business as Cane Creek Sod, submitted a bid with Medalist to provide Meyer Zoysia grass sod for the project. Williams and Medalist executed a “grass supplier agreement” that specified the type and quality of grass to be used, stated the price, and gave Medalist a right to inspect and reject the sod. The parties estimated the quantity of sod needed for the project to be twenty-one acres. Williams had approximately sixty-five acres of Meyer Zoysia growing at the time. The agreement did not specify the amount of sod that Medalist would purchase from Williams, nor did it say that Medalist would buy Williams’s sod exclusively. Later, when Medalist had an expert inspect William’s sod (before it was harvested), the expert concluded that it did not meet the quality standards required for the project. Medalist therefore rejected the sod. Williams sued for breach of contract. Was the “grass supplier agreement” enforceable as a requirements contract? Why or why not? [Williams v. Medalist Golf, Inc., F.Supp.3d , 2018 WL 1046889 (E.D.Mo. 2018)] (See The Formation of Sales and Lease Contracts.)

2- Implied Warranties. Harold Moore bought a barrel-racing horse named Clear Boggy for $100,000 for his daughter from Betty Roper, who appraises barrel-racing horses. (Barrel racing is a rodeo event in which a horse and rider attempt to complete a cloverleaf pattern around preset barrels in the fastest time.) Clear Boggy was promoted for sale as a competitive barrel-racing horse. On inquiry, Roper represented that Clear Boggy did not have any performance issues or medical problems, and that the only medications the horse had been given were hock injections, a common treatment.