The problem with Mayfair Inc., which failed to deliver the ordered equipment and thereby caused financial losses to the manufacturer, is subject to careful consideration. In the attempts to sue them for this occasion, one should use the current general liability policies as guidance. In this case, they describe the legal aspects of the actions of all involved parties, the potential remedy against Mayfair limited to breach of contract, and the possibility to get damages from the company.
From this perspective, Mayfair has not done anything wrong and, therefore, cannot be officially responsible for the described event. It means that the legal remedy for Mayfair is limited to breach of contract. According to commercial general liability policies, its coverage is not ensured by law. Instead, the only situations when this company might hold liability include bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury. Since they were not present, no additional remedy against Mayfair as per the contract can be applied. Meanwhile, the labor difficulties arising from the beginning of a union strike in the trucking division, despite their unpredictability, do not exempt Mayfair from paying for damage for non-performance. Since a fixed time of delivery was agreed by the parties, this event should be viewed as such and compensated for by the initiator.
To summarize, Mayfair’s inability to fulfill its contractual obligations in terms of the service and the time indicates the need to set a fine for it. From the legal point of view, it followed the contract provisions but ignored the time, which is still a violation. Thus, although it cannot be considered as a breach, the legal remedy is solely related to the compensation for corresponding damages alongside the payment refund.