UCC 2-202 and the plain meaning rule
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:00 pm
One quick question which I hope one of you can answer:
If there is a sale of goods (i.e. the UCC applies), do you apply the plain meaning rule (whether it be the NY/Context, California, or Alaska rules) or does UCC 2-202 limit you to only using course of dealing, usage of trade, and course of performance? It seems like UCC 2-202(b) says that you cannot use parol evidence if there is a completely integrated agreement. Studying with my group, and they seem to believe that the plain meaning rule is still used in this situation, but I am not so certain. I could certainly be wrong, but I think UCC 2-202 means you can only resort to usage of trade, course of performance, and course of dealings. Can anyone help me out here?
Thanks in advance.
If there is a sale of goods (i.e. the UCC applies), do you apply the plain meaning rule (whether it be the NY/Context, California, or Alaska rules) or does UCC 2-202 limit you to only using course of dealing, usage of trade, and course of performance? It seems like UCC 2-202(b) says that you cannot use parol evidence if there is a completely integrated agreement. Studying with my group, and they seem to believe that the plain meaning rule is still used in this situation, but I am not so certain. I could certainly be wrong, but I think UCC 2-202 means you can only resort to usage of trade, course of performance, and course of dealings. Can anyone help me out here?
Thanks in advance.