MBE Contracts & Sales 1-7 Flashcards
when a transaction at issue is a sale of goods, apply:
UCC Article 2
UCC or common law: contracts for services
common law
UCC or common law: contracts for real estate
common law
UCC or common law: sale of goods
UCC
when transaction involves both sale of goods and rendering of services, apply…
the predominant purpose test, to determine whether common law or UCC applies
(predominant purpose test) if sale of goods predominates, apply ___
UCC; but note that other law may apply to aspects of transaction not related to sale of goods
(predominant purpose test) if services dominant, how is CL/UCC applied?
common law, except UCC provisions relating primarily to sale of goods (e.g. warranties, risk of loss, tender of nonconforming goods)
ACCEPTANCE: four exceptions to communication requirement
- unilateral reward offers or contests
- unilateral offer where parties geographically close (such that offeror will see perform occurred)
- past history of silence serving as A (like reg business rel)
- offer itself says acceptance must come by silence, and offeree intends to accept it by silence
unilateral vs. bilateral offer
unilateral accepted by performance of offeror’s term; bilateral requires mutual promise to perform
if an offer states it must be accepted by silence, what if anything is required for acceptance to occur?
silence, with intent by offeree to accept with silence
mirror image rule
(common law) dictates that terms in A must match terms of O exactly; otherwise it is a CO, not an A
What is the difference between the UCC and CL’s treatment of terms of acceptance?
CL: mirror image rule; acceptance cannot deviate from O terms, else it’s a CO
UCC: more forgiving (2-207); counts as A unless made conditional on acceptance of new / different terms
timing requirement for 2-207 UCC
acceptance may contain different or additional terms, so long as it is definite, seasonable, and sent w/in reasonable time
under UCC 2-207, if an acceptance by the offeree includes a new/different term, that term becomes part of the contract if … (4)
only if all are met (which is difficult) -
1. both parties are merchants
2. new term does not materially alter deal;
3. initial offer did not expressly limit acceptance to its terms; AND
4. offeror does not object within reasonable time to new terms
knock-out rule governs ___
when acceptance contains a different term than offer (rather than a new additional term)
only under UCC
what’s a thing to remember when encountering the knock out rule / different terms?
there is no controlling precedent on this - there are majority and minority views
minority vs. majority view of knock-out rule
majority: the different/conflicting terms knock each other out; resolved with UCC gap-filling rules / default terms
minority: unless 2-207(2) test for inclusion of new offeree term met (merchants, nonmaterial term, no express limit to own terms, no reasonable time objection), revert to original offer
if no acceptance occurred under 2-207, but parties still perform(/exchange goods), what, if any, contract applies?
only terms in writings from both parties become part of contract; otherwise, UCC default rules
under 2-207, when an offer is accepted (but acceptance has new terms), the new terms become part of the contract only if -
- parties are merchants
- term does not materially alter contract
- offer does not expressly limit acceptance to terms of the offer, or
- notification of objection not given by offeror
2-207(1) / (2) and 2-207 (3) analyses should not be performed simultaneously because…
(1) describes a scenario in which an acceptance occurs. between merchants, nonmaterial terms (+ no express condition by Or) in A / proposed by Oee will govern
(3) describes scenario when there was no A (e.g. not definite or seasonable, or other reasons). no other analysis - whatever they agreed on in writing, + default rules
if parties agreed early to a contract and then there was a written confirmation with new terms, analyze produced contract by…
applying test in 2-207(2) which governs whether new terms apply (must be merchants, must be nonmaterial, O must not have been conditioned on own terms, no reas-timed objection by Or)
what three questions to ask when assessing consideration?
- who is the promisor?
- is there a benefit to the promisor, OR a detriment to the promisee?
- was this bargained for? (parties thought they were making a deal)
satisfaction contract
promise to pay someone on condition that their output is satisfactory; counts as bargained for consideration
why are output and requirements contracts sufficient for consideration?
there is a way for both parties to breach.
- output: selling product to others
- requirement: requiring product but buying from others
settling a legal claim can be sufficient consideration, but only if…
plaintiff has good faith belief in validity of claim that they are foregoing (legal detriment); OR
reason to doubt validity of claim due to uncertain law
pre-existing duty rule
COMMON LAW: agreeing to do something you already were legally required to do is not consideration
dictates that modifying a contract may require new consideration in order to be valid
your rent is $2000, but you can’t pay it, so you talk to your landlord. you both agree to reduce the rent to $1,500. why can the landlord still sue you for the full amount?
(under common law) the landlord received no legal benefit /forewent no legal detriment. no consideration, so no contract - original contract controls
exceptions to preexisting duty rule (3)
- change in performance (e.g. agree to extend lease, PLUS cost decrease)
- third party promising to pay; or
- unforeseen difficulties that would excuse performance