Contract Law: The Case of Joe and the Purchase of Black Acre
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 5542
Question One
In the case of Joe and the purchase of Black acre, a house in Northern Carolina, the transaction refers to a real estate. The uniform commercial code (UCC) Article two, concerns the sale of goods worth over $500, but does not cover real estates, money and other intangible items, which includes services (McKendrick, 2014). In the event that Joe expresses interest in purchasing a house, it falls on the real estate that is not covered by then article two. Oil is discovered on the premises after a contract was sealed and therefore it was not part of the initial deal that may categorize the transaction as a mixed sale. The transaction will be guided by the common law of contracts that will take effect since the UCC is not applicable.
Common law is the law that governs contractual transactions with real estates, services and the intangible goods. In common law, the initial contract would only change if there were a modification of the terms of the offer (McKendrick, 2014). In other words, any change in the original agreement presents no contract and adherence should be made to the previous contract as it was. In the case of Joe, when the common law takes precedence, the deal was already sealed at the moment the sale was concluded and there exists a legal agreement. A valid contract was thus formed for the offer since the buyer completed the sale on call without any modifications.
Question Two
In the case of Sad Sack, the patient, Sack, received appropriate services for his condition, appropriate tests were conducted, and different practitioners attended to him. To manage his condition, the treating doctor recommended for the fitting of an orthopaedic device for Sack. The patient pay for the bill inclusive of the instrument and the hospital fits for him the acquired device that later fail and causes Sack severe injury. In this case, the uniform commercial code does not apply for a reason, one, the law does not apply to services that at this instance the service dominate the transaction (McKendrick, 2014). In Sack’s situation, the contract involved goods and services where the right became defective and caused injury. Even if the transaction was above $500, the service was predominant and the case, which UCC does not cover involved medication. Therefore, on Sack suing the rehab centre, he accused the wrong person since the rehab centre does not supply the device he was implanted for. Instead of suing the provider of the service, Sack would have picked on the supplier of the good as the respondent (McKendrick, 2014). Therefore, for this case, the rehab centre was not the right defendants in the case of Sack but instead, the supplier of the good was.
Question Three
In the case of Johnny Van Gogh and Billy Huntington, Johnny in writing offers to sell to Billy a famous painting he owned. Billy accepts the offer and demands the frame that the painting is in to be included in the sale. Johnny changes his mind about the sale and Billy sues for the particular performance of the contract. Under the UCC, there was an acceptance of the offer since Billy responded expressing acceptance of the tender. The acceptance included additional demand from the buyer, and since both of them are non-merchants, the contract can only be made using the initial terms offered by the seller. The additional terms by Billy are merely a proposal and it should be upon Johnny to effect or ignore (McKendrick, 2014). The court would enforce the contract based on the initial offer for the sale of the painting was valid as there were an offer and acceptance creating a valid contract.
If the UCC was not in existence and only the common law was applicable to that matter, since the terms of acceptance for the sale of the painting do not match those of the offer, as Billy was demanding for the frame too, there was no contract reached.Therefore, the court would not enforce the contract since there was no contract under the common law.
The sale of the painting, under either UCC or Common Law rules, entitles Huntington to use specific performance as a correct remedy. Under the common law, any additional modification to the offer made by the seller automatically means there is no contract and thus he had to make sure that his terms of acceptance exactly matched those of the tender for a contract to exist.Under the UCC, since both of them are non-merchants, it is expected that he would rather enter into a new contract with Johnny to include the frame if Johnny could accept or rather enter into the contract as it was since the additional demands were equivocally mere suggestions not binding to the contract.
Question Four
In the situation of Donald Dummy, he offers to sell his car for $5000 and Sally accepts the offer as it is the sale value initiating a sale (McKendrick, 2014). First, the good on offer is tangible and it costs over $500. There is no modification to the terms of the offer as the terms of acceptance match exactly those of the tender. In this case, therefore, a valid contract is entered into and since a valid offer has been made by the seller and accepted as it was by the buyer without modifications, the court would enforce such contract.