Why choose us?

We understand the dilemma that you are currently in of whether or not to place your trust on us. Allow us to show you how we can offer you the best and cheap essay writing service and essay review service.

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)

The discussion assignment provides a forum for discussing relevant topics for this week based on the
course competencies covered. To support your work, use the textbook, lectures and scholarly outside
sources. As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in
APA format. Post the answers to both parts in one discussion post and do not attach documents. Select
two of the three scenarios.

Scenario 1
Home Depot offers to sell Bill Casey, the purchasing manager for Canton Construction, 1000 ABS hard
hats with reflectors for $10 each with a one-year period for action on breach of warranty. Casey copies
Home Depot�s offer to his own form that contains a two-year period for action on breach of warranty
preprinted on the back of the form, and sends the acceptance to Home Depot. Do the parties have a
contract? Why or why not? If so, what are its terms? Please be sure to cite to the Uniform Commercial
Code (UCC), which provides guidance in answering these questions.
Scenario 2
Harold purchased a Jazzy Sport 2 Power Chair from GoMobility, an affiliate of the manufacturer, Jazzy
Electric Wheelchairs. The sales brochure from Jazzy stated that all Jazzy products would �serve the
buyer well for many years to come.� About 18 months later, Harold had problems with the Jazzy Sport
and filed a breach of express warranty lawsuit against GoMobility and Jazzy Electric Wheelchairs. What
arguments would each party make? Decide which party should win and provide support for your answer
using the text materials, and/or the applicable law.

Week 2 Assignment 1 Discussion

Scenario 1 Discussion
From the details presented in this scenario, it is evidently clear that the parties do not
have a contract. This is because based on Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) that
deals with sales the outlined conditions in this scenario are an outright indication of a contract.
For instance, firm offers, including offers by a merchant to sell or purchase goods accompanied
by a promise for the offer to be kept open for a stipulated period of time if signed by offeror
remain valid without consideration; and also they remain irrevocable for the period stipulated, or
a reasonable time if no time is stated (UCC § 2-205). According to the Uniform Commercial
Code (UCC), consideration are referred to modifications on the contract without considerations,
which to a significant extent will make the contract unacceptable for the sale of goods (UCC § 2-
209). Even if these modifications may be acceptable to Home Depot, the significant

modification of the period for action on breach of warranty from one year to two years by the
Canton Construction purchasing manager Bill Casey is way much significant to make it
acceptable (Cowan, 2014).
Scenario 2 Discussion
Warranties are considered to be statement of facts or promises in obtaining a contract or
in a contract (Macaulay et al., 2010). Burling (2011) and Koffman & MacDonald (2007)
reiterate that, warranties are considered to be factual promises which are enforceable through
contract-based legal action, irrespective of reliance, intent, and materiality. Harold will argue that
Jazzy Electric Wheelchairs misrepresented their Jazzy Sport 2 Power Chair by indicating that
their products will serve the buyer for many years. On the other hand, Jazzy Electric Wheelchairs
will argue that it did not manufacture the product and should no bear the liability, but
GoMobility. However, GoMobility will argue that, it is Jazzy Electric Wheelchairs through their
sales brochure that misrepresented its products and should bear the liability. This is governed by
the common law doctrine that provides that only parties to a contract can either be sued or sue
other parties to the contract; for example, the two cases elaborating this include: Dunlop v
Selfridge’ [1915] AC 79 HL and Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 HL. The law applicable in
this scenario is the Contacts Act 1999, and the party that should win is Harold (the buyer)
because the product was misrepresented in the precontractual statements (West & Lewis, 2009).




Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 HL

Burling, J. M. (2011). Research Handbook on International Insurance Law and Regulation.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cornell University Law School (2001). Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.): The American Law
Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
Cowan, M. (2014).Uniform Commercial Code and Bitcoin: We Use Coins.

Dunlop v Selfridge’ [1915] AC 79 HL
Koffman, L., & MacDonald, E. (2007). The Law of Contract. New York, NY: Oxford University
Macaulay, S., Braucher, J., Kidwell, J.A., & Whitford, W. (2010). Contracts: Law in Action (3 rd
ed.). Dayton, OH: LexisNexis. ISBN 978-1-42248176-9
UCC § 2-205
UCC § 2-209
West, G. D., & Lewis, W. B. (2009). Contracting to Avoid Extra-Contractual Liability—Can
Your Contractual Deal Ever Really Be the “Entire” Deal? The Business Lawyer.

All Rights Reserved, scholarpapers.com
Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products.