1. Because the additional terms become part of the contract,In the battle of the forms, all additional terms become part of the contract unless they are promptly objected to, are material changes or are banned by the offer. Katie sent Phil a text asking him to pick up and deliver her new boots. Phil agreed but only if Katie agreed to go out on a date with him and Katie refused. These additional terms (the date) did not become part of the agreement because Katie refused Phil’s advancement. 2. Tickets do not have any actual monetary value. The purchase of dinner show tickets are not covered under the UCC because a show is not considered a good. Sam was unable to get a her money back for the unentertaining show she had viewed because the ticket was not covered by the UCC. …show more content…
The trees are covered under the UCC because they are considered goods, its the land that isn't covered under the UCC. The sale of trees is subject of the UCC because the trees are goods, regardless of the land they are on. Millie is selling her only apple tree on her 3 acres of land. 4. The offer must specifically state the quantity of the goods. As long as the quantity is mentioned in the contract, the other missing terms do not make the offer invalid under the UCC. Allie agreed to sell Minnie three apples for the price of one apple. 5. Firm offers are available for up to 3 months maximum. Without any other consideration, a merchant can make a firm offer to keep the contract open for three months. Allie’s offer to sell her old Mustang convertible to her uncle for $5500 was classified as a firm offer and therefore the offer was only open for up to three months. Her uncle did not provide any money or anything that could be considered as consideration so Allie opened the contract with another individual. 6. A disclaimer of warranties must be conspicuous. All warranties can be disclaimed if done conspicuously. Amanda always sold her old stuff with the statement“As is” in the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
One such difference lies in the acceptance of an offer. Under the common law of contracts, an acceptance must objectively manifest intent to contract. Under the UCC, a contract for the sale of goods may be formed in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties that recognizes the existence of a contract, even without an explicit expression of
- Once goods are identified, this is when UCC 2-401 is applied to the passage of tittle. In mostly all of UCC 2-401 the words “unless otherwise explicitly agree” appear, meaning that any explicit understanding between the buyer and the seller determines when tittle passes. If both parties do not come to an outright agreement than the tittle passes to the buyer at the time and the place the seller performs by delivering the goods.
Contract laws had two problems which are old contract law principles often did not reflect modern business practices, and law had become different from one state to another. On many legal topics, contacts law included the national government has had a little to say and has allowed the state to act individually. The UCC was made as an effort to answer two problems. I was a proposal written by legal scholars not a law drafted by members of congress or stat legislatures. The scholars at the American law institute and the national conference of commissioners on uniform state laws had great ideas but they had no legal authority to make anyone do anything. Over time, lawmakers in al fifty states were persuaded to adopt many parts of the Uniform Commercial Code. They responded to persuasive arguments such as businesses will benefit if most commercial transactions are governed by the modern and efficient contract law principles that are outlined in the uniform commercial code. Also businesses everywhere will be able to operate more efficiently, and transactions will be more convenient, if the law surrounding most of their transactions is the same in all fifty states. The main focus is in the article 2 of the uniform commercial code book.
For there to be a binding agreement between Dr Hu and Riversong Mediquip, two factors must be present, these factors are and offer and acceptance. An offer can be defined as a willingness to enter into a bargain and in doing so does justify another person an understanding that his/her assent is invited and will conclude the bargain. Heydon JA suggested that an offer must ‘take form of a proposal for consideration which gives an offeree an opportunity to choose between acceptance and rejection’ .The offer in this scenario was made by Riversong Mediquip to sell Dr Hu medical equipment as was depicted in a previous correspondence between the parties. The offer was to sell the medical equipment to Dr Hu for the sum of $180 000. For this offer to be a real offer, it must appear to Dr Hu that an offer had been made and that if he did not reply to their offer then he would have entered into a binding agreement with Riversong Mediquip. ‘When an offer is made, for it to be a binding contract, it should not only be accepted, but that acceptance should be notified’ , Dr Hu did not respond to the offer sent to him by Riversong Mediquip, and therefore complying with their conditions of acceptance he has accepted the offer and entered into a contract with them.
Offer is a one of a key factor of the contract but it must be legal. The offer must be sound communicated so that the getting party has the ability to accept or refuse the offer. If anyone signs a contract with out any reading it does so it is his/her own risk.The terms made in offer must be clear since court will review the clarity of contract. Bids or Request for Proposals are not valid offers. An offer must needs to be distinguished from an invitation to treat, goods on display in shops etc.
In Law of Contract, it consists of five elements which are offer and acceptance; intention to create legal relations (ITCLR); consideration; capacity; and free consent. The elements that will be applied in the case of Gabby and Lorna are offer and acceptance. Offer is divided into bilateral and unilateral offer. Bilateral offer is an agreement between two or more parties in a proposal. In contrast, unilateral offer is between one individual with the whole world. Section 2(c) stated that the first party who makes the proposal invites the other party is called as offeror while the person who accepts the proposal from the offeror is called as offeree.
Both the common law and the statutory law have recognized the weaker position of consumers. It is well established an exclusion clause will be valid and enforceable only if it is incorporated in the contract, use clear wordings and does not contravene statutory limits. In order to limit the unfairness resulting from exclusion clauses, the courts have developed certain principles such as the doctrine of non est factum in signature cases, ‘red ink-red hand’ principle in relation to ‘onerous or unusual’ terms, contra proferentem rule when interpreting ambiguous exclusion clauses and ‘fundamental breach’ principle.
Defendant sent plaintiff a document titled ‘Agreement for Sale’ and the letter indicates that if Mr. Storer sign the Agreement and return it, the defendant will send Mr. Storer the Agreement signed on behalf of the council in exchange. Therefore, Mr. Storer signed and returned the ‘Agreement for Sale’, however, the defendant refused to sell the property to Mr. Storer. The court held that to a reasonable man, the defendant letter appeared to commit to sell the property if plaintiff returned the signed document. Thus, it was an offer.
Condition in a sale by sample : A contract of sale is a contract for sale by sample where there is a term in the contract, express or implied to that effect. Usually, a sale by sample is implied when the sample is shown and the parties intend that the goods should be of the kind and quality as the sample. The implied condition are :
Since the case of Carlill, there have been issues involving whether an offer was made, and the issue surrounding the offer (see more O 'Gorman, Daniel P. "Redefining Offer in Contract Law." Mississippi Law Journal 82.6 (2013): 1049-1096.) Classic cases which reflect this are Lefkowitz v great minneapolis surplus store and Fairmount Glass Works v Gruden-Martin Woodware, as…..