Sales and Leases
Spring 2002
Professor Robyn Meadows
- Scope
- Article 2: Sales
- Applies to transactions in goods UCC § 2-102
- Transactions
- Sales—passing of title from seller to buyer for a price UCC § 2-106(1)
- Seller: One who sells or contracts to sell UCC § 2-103(1)(d)
- Buyer: One who buys or contracts to buy UCC § 2-103(1)(a)
- Exchanges
- Goods
- Things which are movable at the time of identification of the contract for sale UCC § 2-105(1)
- Minerals removed from realty UCC § 2-107(1)
- Removed by the seller
- Growing crops, building materials inside of building UCC § 2-107(2)
- Attached to realty
- Severed without material
- Removed by buyer or seller
- Manufactured goods UCC § 2-105
- Specially manufactured goods
- appear to request service of mfg. the good BUT
- the mfg of goods is covered under Article 2 (see below: hybrid transactions)
- Hybrid Transactions
- Predominate Purpose Test (all or nothing: either Article 2 applies or it does not)
- If the primary purpose for entering into the contract was for the goods, Article 2 applies
- If the primary purpose for entering into the contract was for the service, Article 2 does not apply: common law will apply
- Doctors—under this test, doctors are presumed to provide services; thus, Article 2 will not apply to doctors
- Gravamen Test (Modern Law) (Both Article 2 and the common law can apply)
- If the point of complaint is towards the good, Article 2 (and common law) applies
- If the point of complaint is towards the service, Article 2 will not apply: common law will apply
- Benefits
- Draft the complaint under the UCC (because UCC and Common law can apply)
- Broadens the scope of the UCC
- Fairness
- Focus on the substance of the transaction rather than the form
- Applies primarily in Consumer transactions, not between businesses
- Examples
- goes to eye doctor for glasses. On one contract, pays 100 for exam, 175 for glasses. They break and injure . Under predominate purpose test, has no Article 2 relief because healthcare is predominately a service. Under the gravamen test, may have a cause of action under Article 2 because the point of complaint was the good—here, the glasses.
- goes to doctor for exam. Doctor gives exam, bills , and refers him to for glasses. buys glasses from , gets billed by , and is injured by glasses. Again, the predominate purpose test would not allow recovery against the doctor under Article 2 because the doctor provided a service. could recover against the because mfg. the eye glasses.
- Article 2 applies to merchants and nonmerchants
- Merchants UCC § 2-104
- Dealer of particular goods OR
- One with knowledge or skill peculiar to goods or practices OR
- One whom acquires knowledge or skill by hiring an agent with such knowledge or skill
- What kind of merchant
- Any person in business acting in mercantile capacity (lawyer or banker buying fishing tackle for own use not a merchant)
- Statute of frauds UCC § 2-201(2)
- Firm Offers UCC § 2-205
- Confirmatory Memoranda UCC § 2-201(2)/2-207
- Modifications of Contracts UCC § 2-209
- Merchant with respect to goods of that kind
- Implied Warranty of merchantability UCC § 2-314
- Specific and professional sellers
- Not isolated sales
- Siemen v. Alden— was a lumber dealer and sold a saw. Held: not a merchant under 2-314 because he was not a merchant with respect to saws, but a merchant with respect to lumber.
- Good Faith UCC § 2-103(1)(b)
- Any person in the business acting in mercantile capacity
- Good Faith Standard for merchants UCC § 2-103(1)(b)
- Honesty in fact UCC § 1-201(19) AND
- Observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade
- New Merchants
- Comparable to other new merchants
- ALL MERCHANTS MUST FOLLOW GOOD FAITH STANDARD FOR MERCHANTS
- "Between Merchants" UCC § 2-104(3)
- Both buyer and seller must be merchants
- Article 2A: Leases Applies to any transaction that creates a lease UCC § 2A-102
- Definition of a LeaseUCC § 2A-103(j)
- Transfer of the right to possess and use
- Goods
- For a term
- Finite, fixed amount of time—at end of term, goods return to lessor
- In exchange for consideration (not gratuity—$$$)
- Security Interests (distinguished from leases)
- Whether the substance of a transaction is a true lease OR disguised sale with lessor financing the sale
- Can the lessee terminate the lease? (termination Clause)
- Factual determinations
- If the lessee CAN terminate, then it is a true lease
- If the lessee CANNOT terminate, then it may be a security interest
- If there is no value at the end of the term
- Useful economic life is over at the end of the term, then it is a security interest
- useful economic life measured in years/time
- speaks to the length of time the good has any value
- depreciation evidence
- experts
- clients
- If the lessee can buy at the end (Case-by-case determination)
- Can be a true lease if there is an option to buy
- must buy at the fair market value at the end of the lease to be a true lease
- If the lessee buys for NOMINAL consideration, it is a lease intended as a security interest
- Nominal consideration determined by
- Comparing the consideration paid WITH
- Reasonably anticipated fair market value at the time of the original agreement
- Rationale—what did the parties think the goods would be worth at the end of the lease
- Summary: a security interest is created IF
- "No Termination" clause AND
- Either
- Term and economic life are equal
- Lessee is bound to buy
- Renewal for nominal consideration OR
- Buyout at end of term for nominal consideration
- Contract Formation
- Statute of Frauds UCC § 2-201(1) *apply when one party denies existence of contract*
- IF sale of goods AND
- $500 or more (total price of the contract) THEN
- writing is required
- Intentional writing into tangible form
- Printing, typewriting, e-records or other tangibles UCC § 1-202(46)
- Need not be mailed, delivered, or seen by the in order to qualify
- sufficient to indicate the existence of an agreement
- some objective evidence to believe an agreement was made
- signed by the party to be charged (person who claims there is no contract)
- any symbol WITH
- present intent to authenticate UCC § 1-201(39) AND
- listing the quantity (code cannot fill in the quantity term, so you must have it)
- not exact quantity
- can be determined by good faith or reasonableness
- Exceptions to the statute of frauds
- UCC § 2-201(2) Merchant Exception
- IF between merchants
- both parties must be merchants
- Any person in the business acting in mercantile capacity (2-104(3) comments)
- writing that confirms the contract
- probably after oral agreement; this is pretty much a given, but my darling girlfriend wanted it included in the outline, and because I lover her, I will so include said element.
- Oral agreement followed by confirmatory memo: Bazak
- Some objective guarantee that the oral agreement rests on a real transaction
- Sufficient against the sender (would bind the sender: requirements of 2-201(1))
- writing
- sufficient to indicate agreement was made
- signed by sender AND
- indicating quantity
- Sent and received within a reasonable time
- fairness to the receiver of the memo
- To determine reasonable, look to goods
- Perishable
- Depreciation
- Reasonable industry standards
- Recipient has reason to know of the memo's contents
- reason to know means the sender sent the memo to the appropriate place
- recipients are expected to read mail
- THEN no statute of frauds UNLESS
- written
- no phone calls
- objection made to confirmatory memorandum
- must object to the contract completely "we have no contract"
- cannot be used to get out of a deal you actually made
- Made within 10 days of receipt of the confirmation
- The exception only eliminates the statute of fraud defense for the
- Only gives her day in court
- burden of proof remains with the to establish the contract and terms
- can always dispute the terms of the agreement
- Example of Merchant exception: Bazak—oral agreement between (buyer) and (seller) followed by purchase order sent by (usually used by as a seller, but here he was a buyer). Court held that there was objective evidence of the oral agreement and the purchase orders, although normally mere offers, were sufficient against (sender) because they were specific, sent from seller, 4 orders were very detailed and the final order was a summary of the agreement and date of alleged oral agreement.
- Specially Manufactured Goods exception
- specially manufactured goods for the BUYER
- seller mfg's for buyer
- items not usually in stock
- unique specifications
- not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of seller's business
- cannot by advertising or buyer list sell the goods
- efforts made
- uniqueness of goods
- scarcity of use for good
- how many potential buyers
- more expensive to build specific goods
- mere fact that seller takes a loss is not enough to satisfy the element
- there must be detriment to the seller
- Seller has made a substantial beginning to manufacture OR made commitments for the procurement
- Seller is bound to another party for parts specific to buyer's spec. goods
- before buyer gives notice of repudiation to seller
- Under circumstances that reasonably indicate the goods are for the buyer
- Example of exception: Golf Ball Tank: Buyer (city) orders tank to look like golf ball. City sends check for $3000 as down payment. Seller starts to make it and nearly finishes but buyer (new administration in city) informs seller that there is no agreement. Goods were spec. mfg. (golf ball tank); not suitable for resale; they made a subst. beginning because they completed the tank before repudiation; circumstances indicated goods were for city because "c" was painted. This might not be enough, so show delivery schedule, what other projects you are working on at the time, records, etc.
- Admission of existence of agreement UCC § 2-201(3)(b)
- once party admits the existence of the contract, that party cannot raise SOF defense
- must be admitted in court
- pleading, testimony, or otherwise
- written pleading
- stipulation
- oral statement
- Performance, Part Performance, Part Payment Exception (Based on common law (unjust enrichment)
- buyer makes payment AND seller accepts OR
- seller delivers, buyer receives, AND buyer accepts and retains goods
- Part payment
- Contract is enforceable to the extent the goods were received and accepted
- If more than one item is involved:
- Court must apportion the goods: If buyer pays for part of the goods, court can make seller deliver paid-for goods
- If only one item is involved
- Guarantees the deal BECAUSE
- Cannot apportion the goods
- Statute of Frauds for Leases: UCC § 2A-201 (same as above unless otherwise indicated)
- Lease price must be $1000
- Description of the goods
- Lease term (length of term)
- Reasonably identifiable
- There is no merchant exception
- There is no part performance exception
- Spec. mfg. goods exception same as above
- Admissions exception same as above
- Part performance exception applies ONLY to the goods that have been received and accepted
- Parole Evidence Rule UCC § 2-202 and § 2A-202 *Parties Agree that there is a Contract But One Party Tries to Introduce a Term Outside of the Writing*
- Determine the type of Writings (3 Types)
- Two Confirmatory memos of the parties
- One from Buyer AND One from Seller
- With Terms that parties agree to
- Writing Intended as Final Expression of agreement by both parties with respect to the terms in the writing
- Partially Integrated
- Terms agreed to in that contract, other terms are missing
- Complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed to by both parties
- Fully Integrated (NO PE unless COT/UOT/COP)
- Determining Fully or Partially Integrated
- Negotiations
- Length (Time)
- Arm's length negotiations or adhesion contract
- Details
- What is the term to be added?
- Contradictory, additional, etc.
- Would it certainly have been in the writing?
- Context of the transaction
- Completeness
- Merger Clause—sometimes not enough to fully integrate by itself
- Performance
- Type of Evidence
- Contradictory Terms
- Always excluded BUT:
- If the contract is silent, the term cannot contradict
- Use liberal approach—try to find that it does not contradict
- Mere ambiguity in the contract does not mean the term contradicts
- Court construes terms as consistent with contract if reasonable to do so
- If unreasonable to construe as consistent, then
- Express terms
- Course of performance
- Course of Dealing
- Usage of Trade
- Supplemental/Explanatory
- Usage of Trade, Course of Dealing, Course of Performance
- Usage of trade UCC § 1-205(2): common understanding among everyone in the industry
- Both parties must be privy to the industry standards
- Requires two commercial parties
- Course of Dealing
- UCC § 1-205(1): sequence of previous conduct between the parties establishing a common understanding between the parties
- Previous conduct fairly to be regarded as a common basis of understanding between the parties (it's fair to let this evidence in)
- Course of Performance UCC § 2-208: parties dealing regarding the contract in dispute
- Look to how strictly the parties were adhering to the terms of the K
- Determines what parties meant by the contract
- COP/COD/UOT ALWAYS ADMISSIBLE UNLESS CONTRADICTS THE WRITING
- Consistent Additional Terms
- Allowed unless writing is fully integrated
- Parole Evidence Analysis
- Identify the type of writing
- Confirmatory Memorandum
- Writing Intended as final agreement (Partially Integrated)
- Complete and exclusive statement of the terms agreed to by both parties (Fully Integrated)
- Confirmatory Memos
- Contradictory Evidence is not admissible
- Consistent Additional Terms are admissible
- UOT/COD/COP is admissible unless contradictory
- Partially Integrated Writing
- Contradictory Evidence is not admissible
- Consistent Additional terms are admissible
- UOT/COD/COP is admissible unless contradictory
- Fully Integrated Writing
- Contradictory Evidence is not admissible
- Consistent Additional terms are not admissible
- UOT/COD/COP is admissible unless contradictory
Type of Evidence
Type of Document
/ Contradictory Evidence / Consistent Additional Term / Usage of Trade, Course of Performance, Course of DealingNon-integrated Writing
/ Evidence Admissible / Evidence Admissible / Evidence Admissible if ConsistentConfirmatory Memos OR Partially Integrated Writings / Evidence Inadmissible under 2-202 / Evidence Admissible under 2-202(a) / Evidence admissible under 2-202(a) if consistent
Fully Integrated Writings (Complete & Exclusive) / Evidence Inadmissible / Evidence inadmissible under 2-202(b) / Evidence Admissible under 2-202(a) if consistent
- Offer and Acceptance
- Offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting acceptance in any reasonable manner unless otherwise unambiguously indicated UCC § 2-206(1)(a)
- If ambiguous, then any reasonable acceptance is permitted
- Example: "reply by return mail" is ambiguous, thus, acceptance by shipment means prompt shipment
- No need to know when acceptance formed the contract UCC § 2204(2)
- Where the beginning of performance is a reasonable mode of acceptance, the offeree MUST notify offeror of the acceptance within a reasonable time in order to bind the offeror UCC § 2-206(2).
- Shipment of conforming/non-conforming goods as acceptance UCC § 2-206(b)
- Where acceptance requires prompt shipment or current shipment
- Construed as inviting acceptance by prompt promise to ship or prompt shipment
- Conforming goods must be in accordance with contract requirements
- Shipment of non-conforming goods is an acceptance and a breach BUT
- If seller ships non-conforming goods AND
- Seasonably (Timely) notifies buyer that the goods are an accommodation
- THEN there is no acceptance
- Buyer can return the goods (No contract) OR
- Buyer can accept the goods (Contract formed)
- Formation in General
- Requires evidence of intent to make a contract UCC § 2-204(1)
- Any manner sufficient to show agreement
- Conduct or otherwise
- Shows the existence of a contract
- Need not know the moment of the making of the contract UCC § 2-204(2)
- Although terms are left open, contract does not fail for indefiniteness as long as there is a reasonably certain basis to provide for remedies
- Gap fillers in the code to supply terms and remedies
- Firm Offers UCC § 2-205
- IF Offer to buy or sell goods
- Offeror is a merchant
- Knowledge of business practices AND
- Acting in mercantile capacity
- Must be a signed writing
- If oral, must be supported by consideration AND
- Assurance that the offer is held open
- THEN offer is irrevocable even without consideration
- Offer is valid for three month maximum
- If offer is open for only twenty days, it is irrevocable for twenty days
- Code provides the maximum time—parties can contract for less time
- If offeree has the writing with the assurance by the offeror
- The offeror must sign the assurance separately
- Example—A writes note to B in law school class on 2/7 offering to sell car by end of summer; gives B option to buy until June 1—signed by A. 2/15 she sells to C. 4/25 B tells A he will give her 10,000 for the car (which is worth 16,000). A tells B the car is sold. B sues for 6,000 loss.
- UCC § 2-207 *Where parties dispute the terms of the contract*
- Oral agreement followed by confirmatory memorandum
- If there is an additional term AND both parties are merchants (any merchants), Term is included UNLESS
- Offer limits acceptance to the terms in the offer
- Term is a material alteration to the contract
- Test: surprise or hardship
- Surprise is subjective and objective determination
- UOT/COD/COP
- Reasonable limitations of remedies are not material alterations
- Hardship is a substantial economic hardship
- Consider contexts
- Likelihood of consequential damages of the goods
- Unilaterally imposing a hardship onto the buyer with knowledge of its economic effect
- Mandatory arbitration is a hardship unless standard in the industry
- Disclaimer of implied warranty of merchantability is normally a hardship
- If alterations are
- Reasonable
- Consistent with the UCC AND
- Consistent with the industry, it is normally not a material alteration
- Party objects to the additional term
- If there is an additional term AND one party is not a merchant, the terms are mere proposals to the contract.
- The other party must expressly assent to the different terms
- If the terms are different: 3 approaches
- Different terms knock each other out and supply gap filler in the code
- Argument—lack of assent anyway so knock out the terms
- Easy, fair, and neutral
- Take terms of offeror
- Offeror is the master of the offer
- Do what is reasonable, regardless of party
- Use facts
- UOT/COP/COD
- Exchange of forms are offer and acceptance (Do offer and acceptance analysis: usually, buyer sends a purchase order form [offer] and seller sends acknowledgement form [acceptance])
- Definite and seasonable acceptance including different or additional terms
- Seasonable—within time specified in contract OR if silent, within a reasonable time
- Definite: Specific and express agreement to the additional or different terms
- If no definite and seasonable acceptance, there is no contract UNLESS
- Parties continue to perform as if there was a contract 2-207(3)
- Contract consists of the terms agreed upon AND
- Any gap fillers provided in the code
- Acceptance expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms
- Express—cannot be implied, so construe as not expressly conditional
- Conditional—party will not perform unless condition is met
- Assent—from offeror to the offeree
- If conditional, and no express assent to different or additional terms AND
- Parties continue to perform as if there was a contract: go to 2-207(3)
- Contract consists of the terms agreed upon AND
- Any gap fillers provided in the code
- Warranties
- Warranty of Title UCC 2-312
- Warranty of title attaches
- Where there is a contract for the sale of goods UCC 2-312(1)
- Warranty of title can be disclaimed by
- Specific language
- Very difficult to disclaim
- Must be a very specific disclaimer and assent by the buyer
- Cannot be disclaimed under UCC 2-316: only under UCC 2-312(2) OR
- Circumstances
- Buyer has reason to know that the seller does not claim title
- Example—buyer buys watch from seller on street corner in NYC
- Extent of the warranty of title
- Good title is conveyed
- General rule: transferee receives all that the transferor has
- Good title—transferee receives good title
- Voidable title
- True owner voluntarily departs with good subject to express/implied condition.