Top Law Schools

So if we are dealing with sale of goods $500 or greater, even between two non-merchants, then we only care about the UCC and not restatement correct?

And thus if we are dealing with goods less than $500, or non-goods, then we don't apply the UCC at all?

Or does a quality exam answer discuss both even the only one (UCC or restatement) applies?

Ask your prof what they want you to do on the exam, but usually, part of the question will be determining which applies - the UCC or restatement/common law - and if it's ambiguous, you have to analyze under both. If it's utterly unambiguous that it's one or the other, I doubt applying the other would win you any points (it'd just make it look like you weren't clear on the difference). But again, your prof is the best person to ask about this - I have had profs who did not like random extraneous analysis of issues not really in the question, but some wouldn't care. (Also look at their model exam questions/answers.)

My understanding is that the UCC applies if there is a sale of goods, regardless of the value. The $500 mark is the threshold for determining if the Statute of Frauds is applicable or not.

Fellow 1L though, could be wrong.

UCC = sale of goods regardless of value

UCC also applies to mixed transactions that are predominantly for the sale of goods

So if on your exam the transaction was for a washing mashine + install I'd recognize the issue, analyze which is more likely to apply, then and analyze the substance of the transaction under both UCC and common law

WahooLaw24 wrote:My understanding is that the UCC applies if there is a sale of goods, regardless of the value. The $500 mark is the threshold for determining if the Statute of Frauds is applicable or not.

Fellow 1L though, could be wrong.

This sounds right. The $500 threshold is for the statute of frauds.

rad lulz wrote:UCC = sale of goods regardless of value

UCC also applies to mixed transactions that are predominantly for the sale of goods

So if on your exam the transaction was for a washing mashine + install I'd recognize the issue, analyze which is more likely to apply, then and analyze the substance of the transaction under both UCC and common law

There's a good chance the hypo on your exam will fall into this kind of gray area, forcing you to consider both. Do so well and you'll be in good shape.

Awesome, thanks guys.

Br3v wrote:So if we are dealing with sale of goods $500 or greater, even between two non-merchants, then we only care about the UCC and not restatement correct?

And thus if we are dealing with goods less than $500, or non-goods, then we don't apply the UCC at all?

Or does a quality exam answer discuss both even the only one (UCC or restatement) applies?

OP, for the love of god, please read the UCC to see when it applies!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2

Please see: § 2-102. Scope; Certain Security and Other Transactions Excluded From This Article. Unless the context otherwise requires, this Article applies to transactions in goods; it does not apply to any transaction which although in the form of an unconditional contract to sell or present sale is intended to operate only as a security transaction nor does this Article impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers or other specified classes of buyers.

See also: 2-103(1)(k) "Goods" means all things that are movable at the time of identification to a contract for sale. The term includes future goods, specially manufactured goods, the unborn young of animals, growing crops, and other identified things attached to realty as described in Section 2-107. The term does not include information, the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities under Article 8, the subject matter of foreign exchange transactions, or choses in action.

Also, as noted above, use the predominate purpose rule when parsing hybrids.

spartjdawg wrote:

Br3v wrote:So if we are dealing with sale of goods $500 or greater, even between two non-merchants, then we only care about the UCC and not restatement correct?

And thus if we are dealing with goods less than $500, or non-goods, then we don't apply the UCC at all?

Or does a quality exam answer discuss both even the only one (UCC or restatement) applies?

OP, for the love of god, please read the UCC to see when it applies!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2

Please see: § 2-102. Scope; Certain Security and Other Transactions Excluded From This Article. Unless the context otherwise requires, this Article applies to transactions in goods; it does not apply to any transaction which although in the form of an unconditional contract to sell or present sale is intended to operate only as a security transaction nor does this Article impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers or other specified classes of buyers.

See also: 2-103(1)(k) "Goods" means all things that are movable at the time of identification to a contract for sale. The term includes future goods, specially manufactured goods, the unborn young of animals, growing crops, and other identified things attached to realty as described in Section 2-107. The term does not include information, the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities under Article 8, the subject matter of foreign exchange transactions, or choses in action.

Also, as noted above, use the predominate purpose rule when parsing hybrids.

I nominate this post for the 2013 TLS Douche Awards

.

Void wrote:

spartjdawg wrote:

Br3v wrote:So if we are dealing with sale of goods $500 or greater, even between two non-merchants, then we only care about the UCC and not restatement correct?

And thus if we are dealing with goods less than $500, or non-goods, then we don't apply the UCC at all?

Or does a quality exam answer discuss both even the only one (UCC or restatement) applies?

OP, for the love of god, please read the UCC to see when it applies!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2

Please see: § 2-102. Scope; Certain Security and Other Transactions Excluded From This Article. Unless the context otherwise requires, this Article applies to transactions in goods; it does not apply to any transaction which although in the form of an unconditional contract to sell or present sale is intended to operate only as a security transaction nor does this Article impair or repeal any statute regulating sales to consumers, farmers or other specified classes of buyers.

See also: 2-103(1)(k) "Goods" means all things that are movable at the time of identification to a contract for sale. The term includes future goods, specially manufactured goods, the unborn young of animals, growing crops, and other identified things attached to realty as described in Section 2-107. The term does not include information, the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities under Article 8, the subject matter of foreign exchange transactions, or choses in action.

Also, as noted above, use the predominate purpose rule when parsing hybrids.

I nominate this post for the 2013 TLS Douche Awards

I will second this! Sorry, tone and intent are tough to convey when posting on a message board. No ill will or doucheyness meant.

UCC Article 2 only applies to sales of goods. It has more or less been adopted by every state, but still check. When analyzing, also assess what the R2d has to say, because not everything overlaps and some of the fundamentals differ between the two.