Shirts-for-Less is dissatisfied with its customary shirt supplier, NC Mills, and decides to try a new supplier. Shirts-for-Less telephones an order to SC Weavers for 500 men’s dress shirts at $15 each ($7,500 total order). Each shirt will have the Shirts-for-Less slogan ("Why Pay More?") and have the company trademark ("SFL") embroidered over the pocket. After the shirts are manufactured, Shirts-for-Less refuses to accept delivery of them, having decided to patch up its relationship with NC Mills. SC Weavers sues Shirts-for-Less for breach of contract and seeks damages of $7,500. Shirts-for-Less files an answer to the complaint denying a valid contract was every formed with SC Weavers. Further, even if a contract was formed, Shirts-for-Less argues that SC Weavers failed to mitigate their damages and is not entitled to the full contract amount.
(a) Assume this case could be heard in the state courts of either North Carolina or South Carolina. Will the jurisdictional choice between these states likely result in a significant difference in the substantive treatment of the contractual claim? Explain your answer. (Note: I am concerned only with substantive law in this question - not procedural law)
(b) What is the basis of Shirts-for-Less’ defense that no valid contract was formed between it and SC Weavers? Is Shirts-for-Less defense likely to succeed? Why or why not?
(c) Assume the court rules in favor of SC Weavers. Is the court likely to award the full contract amount ($7,500) to SC Weavers? Why or why not?