Responses to these post:
Issue: Filbert’s Meat Shop shipped and invoiced an order of $11,000 worth of meat products based on an oral contract where Sonic Taco agreed to pay for the meat. Sonic Taco raised the Uniform Commercial Codes Statute of Frauds, Section 2-201 and denied guaranteeing payment for the meat.
Rule: The Uniform Commercial Code or UCC applies to the sale of goods and products whereas Common Law applies to the contracts of services, real estate, employment, insurance and other intangible assets. In Common Law, a contract is formed when a person gives an offer and someone accepts that exact offer. In UCC, a valid contract can be formed if someone gives an offer and accepts the material terms of the offer (Langvardt et. al, 2019, p. 349). Article 2 under the UCC applies to the contracts of the sale of goods defined as tangible, moveable property. Principle of acceptance also differs in both, where according to the UCC, acceptance occurs when the buyer indicates to the seller that “the goods are conforming” (U.C.C. § 2-206). In a Common Law contract, the principle of acceptance must be the exact same as the offer per the “mirror image” rule (Mehren, 2019). Enforceable contracts contain three elements: offer, acceptance, and consideration. To satisfy the Statute of Frauds, the agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties unless a memorandum exists, goods were partially delivered or paid for, court admission, or the goods were specially manufactured or custom (Contract Law and the Writing Requirements: Satisfying the Statute of Frauds, 2021).
Application: The case of Sonic Taco v. Filbert’s Meat Shop, LLC would be considered a UCC contract because it was the sale of a product or good. The UCC provides that an offer can be accepted by any reasonable means of communication unless specified (Langvardt et. al, 2019, p. 394). Sonic Taco verbally accepted the transaction of the goods and so Filbert’s Meat Shop was right to invoice them once they knew the product would be received. It would only be applicable to Common Law if Filbert’s Meat Shop engaged in a real estate transaction with Sonic Taco. In order for this to meet the requirements for the Statute of Frauds where a contract is not in writing, Filbert’s Meat would need to admit in court that there was no oral acceptance of the contract. The fact that Filbert’s Meat shipped the product and invoiced Sonic Taco implies that they acted under the assumption that a bilateral, express contract was existing, in which the parties stated terms orally and Filbert’s Meat would be paid for the delivery of product (Langvardt et. al, 2019, p. 348).
Conclusion: It was determined by the Courts that Sonic Taco was liable for the payment of $11,000 owed to Filbert’s for the sale of meat. In the appeals court, Sonic Taco still could not argue that this satisfies the Statute of Frauds because there was no written agreement and no written objection to the contract within ten days of receiving the product or invoice. Because the sale had nothing to do with the real estate business of Sonic Taco, this would not apply under Common Law.
Issue: Filbert’s Meat Shop, LLC, shipped meat to Sonic Taco with understanding of an oral agreement that Sonic Taco would pay for the goods.
Rule: Today, there are two laws that govern contracts, Common Law contracts and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC law is a statutory law in every state, Common Law is court made law (Langvardt, 2019). The UCC was created to govern transactions that cross state lines and specifically cover tangible goods. Filbert selling meat to Sonic Taco would be considered tangible goods and fall under article 2 of the UCC.
Application: Sonic Taco is considered a merchant as they have special knowledge of real estate, also Filbert would also be considered a merchant as they special knowledge of meat. Since both parties are merchants, they are both held to a higher standard in the courts view. Sonic Taco attempted to use the UCC section 2-201 as a way of not paying for the meat and stated they there was no agreement between the two parties. As merchants the sale of meat in the value of $11,000 would fall under UCC and be considered as reasonable or commercially reasonable between the two merchants.
Conclusion: Filbert selling meat to Sonic Taco would fall under UCC this sale would fall under a commercial transaction and was the sale of tangible goods. If Sonic Taco can prove that there was not agreement for the meat and prove that agreement between the parties was for real estate purposes, then this would fall under common law. Being that land and real estate is not deemed as tangible goods and does not fall under UCC, if this were to happen then Sonic Taco would win the appeal. However, there is another aspect that was interesting, which is noncontract obligations. Noncontract obligation means that the law enforces an obligation to pay for certain loss or benefit despite the absence of a formal contract (Langvardt, 2019). This would give Filbert an opportunity to establish the existence of a contract to obtain compensation. Under both scenario’s I feel that Sonic Taco would not win the appeals and would be obligated to pay for the goods the Filbert provided.
Issue – Janice requested that Mary install wallpaper in her home, but after Mary purchased the wallpaper, Janice revoked her request.
Rule -Janice expressed her request for Mary’s provision of goods and services, thus creating an implied, hybrid contract. Because the major purpose of this contract is the purchase of the wallpaper, it should be governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Application -This particular contract has legal value because the promisor (Janice) promised the promisee (Mary) to pay her for her goods and services, and Janice (the promisor) neglected to hold up her end of the bargain. Because Mary was acting with the understanding that Janice wanted her to do the work in exchange for payment, should use promissory estoppel to seek reimbursement for the cost of the wallpaper she purchased. Because it was reasonable for Mary to believe that Janice was going to enter into contract with her, Mary should also argue intent to contract (Langvardt, et al., 2019).
Conclusion -Simply because the terms of their agreement were not solidified in writing does not meet that the agreement is not enforceable under the UCC. Additionally, Section 87(2) of the Restatement (Second) protects Mary’s interest (through the guidelines of promissory estoppel) by making Janice account for the revocation. Mary communicated her acceptance of the agreement when she purchased the wallpaper (Langvardt, et al., 2019).
Aside from the legal obligations previously discussed, there are also ethical obligations on the part of both Mary and Janice. The UCC protects individuals or parties from harm through the requirements of preexisting duty. Janice’s duty is to pay Mary for the goods provided and work performed. Janice should be held responsible for her expressed and implied promise.
Janice requested Mary to help renovate her house in anticipation of a spot on a home remodeling show. Mary proactively ordered the required supplies as well as blocked off her calendar to complete the job. The issue is Mary is requesting to be compensated for the losses she incurred as a result of the agreement between her and Janice.
Under the UCC it states that “This section says that sales contracts under Article 2 can be created “in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct which recognizes the existence of a contract”(p366).
The case hinges on whether or not the actions presented constant activity that would suggest that a contract existed. It is clear that there was in fact intent to execute a contract based on the conversation. The time frame can also be inferred as immediately as Janice requested this service in anticipation of appearance on a show that she had already been selected for. It was reasonable for Mary to assume that Janice was going to appear on the show and as such an intent to contract was established. Promissory estoppel also factors in as the Mary acted based on a promise by Janice. Under this code Mary is entitled to compensation despite the absence of an actual contract.
Janice is responsible for compensating Mary for the goods purchased and the labor loss between the time the contract was discussed and the time the contract was communicated ended.