If you have a hybrid contract that deals with both a "good" and service. After applying the predominant purpose test, you reach the conclusion that the contract is considered predominantly a contract for goods. Do you analyze the contract under the UCC only? I am looking at past exams and a lot of students analyze the contract under common law and apply gap fillers.
Here is an example-at the top of the page it says, Motor Right is selling a brand new car with driving lessons. Then the fact pattern has the buyer going to the dealership and acquiring about the car. Buyer makes an offer and then the seller makes a counter-offer, after going back and forth, both parties reach a final agreement. Would you strictly apply the UCC and analyze the contract between the parties?
I might be overthinking this, I was under the impression that common law applies unless displaced by the UCC, which are the gap fillers.
(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], smashbash and 2 guests