Foreign Sales of Products
Naturally, the UCC is American law, having been ratified by the states. It was
adopted because it was inconvenient to conduct business over state lines when
each state had its own laws governing the selling of commodities. In foreign
transactions, the same issue arises. The Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods (CISG), which was first mentioned in (Reference
mayer_1.0-ch08 not found in Book), is the international counterpart of the UCC
that was created by the United Nations Commission on International Trade
Law. In 1980, it was enacted in Vienna. Seventy-six nations, including the
United States and all of its main trading partners with the exception of the
United Kingdom, had ratified the convention, which is a form of treaty, as of
July 2010. "Perhaps because of pride in its longstanding common law legal
imperialism or in its long-treasured feeling of the superiority of English law to
anything that could even challenge it," one expert said, explaining why the UK
stands out among other nations.
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
Offer and Acceptance of Mutual Assent Finality of the Offer
Compared to the UCC, the common law demands greater specificity. Even if an
agreement has open terms, a contractual obligation may nonetheless exist under
the UCC. According to Section 2-204(3), if the parties intended to enter into a
contract and the court can determine a sufficiently certain basis for awarding a
suitable remedy, the sale agreement is not voidable for indefiniteness as it
would be under common law. The open price term is arguably the most
significant example. Section 2-305 goes into detail about the open pricing term.
A contract will nearly certainly collapse under common law if it does not
include a price or a method for precisely determining price. Under the UCC
provision pertaining to open price terms, this is not the case. Section 2-305(1)
"plugs" the open term and mandates that the price to be awarded is a
"reasonable price at the time for delivery" if the contract contains no mention of
price, allows the parties to agree on price but they do not, or assigns the
authority to fix price to a third party who does not. Section 2-305(2) stipulates
that the price must be set in good faith when one party is allowed to do so.
Nonetheless, no contract is created if the parties aim to avoid being bound until
the price is first set or agreed upon.
Acceptance Differing from Offer: Formal Battle
Any agreement must have the fundamental ideas of offer and acceptance, but
the UCC differs from common law in how it handles an acceptance that differs
from the offer (see Reference Mayer 1.0-ch08, not in the book). If the
acceptance and the offer are different, there is no contract in common law,
where the "mirror image rule" governs. With the widespread usage of form
contracts, where each party's form tends to benefit that side, it would be
extremely troublesome if that were the rule for sales contracts. In an effort to
end this "battle of the forms," Section 2-207 of the UCC stipulates that extra
terms or conditions in an acceptance function as such unless the offeror's
approval of the new or modified terms is required. Unless "(a) the offer
expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) [the terms] materially
alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is
given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received," the new terms
are automatically included in any contract between merchants for the sale of
goods, even though they are interpreted as offers. In any event, Section 2-207
continues as follows: "Even though the parties' written correspondence does not
create a contract, actions taken by both parties acknowledging the existence of a
contract are sufficient to establish a contract for sale."
