Silly question about the U.C.C

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
nsv
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm

Silly question about the U.C.C

Postby nsv » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:03 am

you need at least one merchant for the U.C.C to apply, right? if you have 2 private parties then the ucc does not apply (e.g., if i set up a contract to sell my car to a friend).

arklaw13
Posts: 1704
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm

Re: Silly question about the U.C.C

Postby arklaw13 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:11 am

UCC applies if it is a sale of goods, i.e. movable things (as opposed to services).

You're confusing the merchant exception to the statute of frauds and other provisions, which basically loosens some of the rules when both parties have a degree of professional knowledge about the kind of goods the transaction involves. The purpose is that some of the more paternalistic provisions (like statute of frauds writing requirement) aren't really necessary when business transactions need to happen at a faster pace and the parties have a good amount of expertise.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Silly question about the U.C.C

Postby 09042014 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:15 am

prepare thy angus for your final bro

nsv
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm

Re: Silly question about the U.C.C

Postby nsv » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:15 am

battle of the forms confused me. i am reading about the shipment of nonconforming goods and it states that you must at least have one merchant. so in that case, if the shipment was by a private party, the nonconforming good rule should not apply.

nsv
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm

Re: Silly question about the U.C.C

Postby nsv » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:19 am

Desert Fox wrote:prepare thy angus for your final bro


even though this is only a t15 school, i am going to get eaten alive by the gunners. the final is a take home, at least i have that going for me.

User avatar
LionelHutzJD
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Silly question about the U.C.C

Postby LionelHutzJD » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:22 am

Shipment of non-conforming goods is nowhere in 2-207. 2-207 deals with additional terms in acceptance.

sidhesadie
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Silly question about the U.C.C

Postby sidhesadie » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:39 am

Let's just be clear, OP< you're talking about article 2. "UCC" is more than just Article 2, so be careful with your terminology.

Article 2 applies to the sale of goods, as said above, some sections have specific things that apply only in the case of merchants, but do not apply that to all of article 2.

nsv
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm

Re: Silly question about the U.C.C

Postby nsv » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:41 am

LionelHutzJD wrote:Shipment of non-conforming goods is nowhere in 2-207. 2-207 deals with additional terms in acceptance.


i figured that out. the problem was that i confused myself and then tried to look for the answer on the internet. landed on the the following site - http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... goods.html, that fed me incorrect information.

nsv
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm

Re: Silly question about the U.C.C

Postby nsv » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:44 am

sidhesadie wrote:Let's just be clear, OP< you're talking about article 2. "UCC" is more than just Article 2, so be careful with your terminology.

Article 2 applies to the sale of goods, as said above, some sections have specific things that apply only in the case of merchants, but do not apply that to all of article 2.


i am aware of that. my confusion arose from something that I read, but you and the other individuals have cleared that up.

thx

sidhesadie
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Silly question about the U.C.C

Postby sidhesadie » Wed Dec 11, 2013 2:12 am

You're welcome.

The reason I pointed out the specific article wasn't to be a dick. It's because you indicated you're about to take what I presume is a 1L final. Unlike undergrad, if you just say "UCC", the prof will not infer you mean article 2, even if you're talking about it. Those are points you miss. Specificity is points, particularly in statute heavy areas.

Wearthewildthingsr
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Silly question about the U.C.C

Postby Wearthewildthingsr » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:43 am

UCC 2-207 deals with battle of the forms

basically 2 things happen
in both cases the last guy can't add shit to the original offer.

one case is where there's a proviso with acceptance only if these additional terms are accepted but then performance occurs. this means knockout rule applies where only terms that agree are accepted.

other one is if there is no proviso but then that means the terms will be proposals to be added, if performance, then will be added to K but if they're a material alteration then won't be added. examples of material alteration is disclaimer of warranty.

/end gunner post.
in b4 omg what a gunner, omg totally side tracked thread, omg go die in a car fire




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests