Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
MERCHANT DEFINED Ferragamo v. MBTA*** Sieman v. Alden 2-104 2-314, 2-104 2-314, 2-104, 2-315 STATUTE OF FRAUDS Bazak v. Mast Industries*** 2-201, 2-201(2) 2-201(2) PAROL EVIDENCE Columbia Nitrogen v. Royster Nanakuli v. Shell Oil 2-202, UOT 1-205(2), COD 1-205(1), COP 2-208(1) CONTRACT FORMATION Dickinson v. Dodd 2-204, 2-207, 1-103 rstmt §24, §36 2-205 Drennan v. Starr Paving Lambert v. Kyser Dale R. Horning v. Falconer rstmt §87 2-206 2-207 ADDT’L TERMS IN ACCEPTANCE Diamond Fruit v. Krack*** 2-207(1) 2-207(2) 2-207(3) 2-316 GETTING RID OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES Cate v. Dover 2-316 Bowdoin v. Showell 2-314 2-315 2-316 Hunt v. Perkins Theos & Sons v. Mack 2-313 2-316(3) 2-314 Exception to writing requirement 2-104(1) merchant’s exception does not have to be signed Offer & accept Termination Firm Offers, lapse of time = termination Bargained For Consideration Unilateral Additional Terms Counter offer = ACCEPTANCE Add’l terms on responding forms=k b/t merchants unless objected to or materially limits, Terms Fall Out if Parties Don’t Agree, once perf. begins, Sufficient to establish a contract Fitness For Purpose 2-314 Fitness for Purpose 2-315 Merchantability 2-316 Conspicuous Disclaimer Conspicuous / Merchantability Must reasonably call BR’s attention Part of bargain Must be on face of P.O. or say “see other side” Subsequent Owners IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTIBILTY Shaffer v. Victoria Station Back v. Wickes Daniell v. Ford Motors 2-314 Food & Drink Container Vasillo Webster v. Blue Ship Tea Room Phillips v. Town of Springfield No Duty To Warn Against Unforeseeable Breast Implants Food & Drink Food – Reasonableness Standard FIT FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE Milau Assoc v. North Ave Dev. 2-102 Anthony Pools 2-102 2-315 Predominant Factor Test Gravaman of the Action Test LIMITATION OF REMEDIES Wilson Trading v. David Fergusson 2-719 2-316 Goddard v. GMC 2-719(1) 2-719 Disclaimers Disclaimer Failed its Purpose DEFENSES 2-607(3)(a) Castro v. Stanley Works 2-607(3), §318 in MA P&F Construction v. Friend Lumber Notice Baystate Steamship v. Caterpillar 2-725 Contract based 4 yrs from delivery date 2-318 Tort based 3 yrs from injury date Jacobs v. Yamaha 2-314 No privity, Minority view – remote BR can sue remote seller under 2314 for economic loss alone MAGNUSSON-MOSS ACT (FED’L) Ventura v. Ford Motors Troutman v. Pierce Can revoke against a party in privity Revoke acceptance & got atty’s fees -2- ARTICLE 2A: WARRANTIES: title 2A-211, express 2A-210, merch 2A-212, fitness 2A-213, disclaim 2A-214 Colonial Pacific Leasing v. McNatt 2A-103 finance leasing and immunity Draleau MA 2-318 finance leasing GAP FLLING: K FORMATION & LAW OF UNCONSCIENABILITY Formation in gen’l 2-204, open price terms 2-305, output-anything produced 2-306 Landrum v. Davenport 2-202 PER fills gaps 2-305 open price terms 1-207 reservation of rights UNCONSCIENABILITY Waters v. Minnesota Ltd 2-302 RISK OF LOSS: tender 2-503, shipment by SR 2-504, risk of loss 2-509, FOB 2-319, CIF 2320, delivery ex ship 2-322 NO BREACH Jason’s Foods v. Peter Eckrick 2-509(2)(b) risk of loss turns on acknowledgment BREACH Jakoski v. Carole Chevrolet 2-510(1) DELIVERY TERMS Cook Specialty v. Schrlock Rheinberg v. Vineyard Wine 2-509(1)(a) 2-504 2-509(1)(a) 2-319(a) risk of loss shipment by seller risk of loss DOCUMENTS OF TITLE: B/L 1-201(1) & WHSE REC’T 1-201(45) Article 7 intra state commerce Proctor Gamble v. Lawrence American Whse 7-204(1) Dunfee v. Blue Rock Storage 7-204(1) 7-309 carrier LETTERS OF CREDIT: issuer’s rights and obligations 5-102, stand-by letters of credit, strict compliance rule 5-108(a) U.S. Industries v. 2nd New Haven Bank issuer’s duties and rights Steijn v. Henry Schroder 5-109 PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS: INSTALLMENT K & SINGLE DELIVERY Jacob & Young v. Kent 2-612(1) installment sales -3- Cherwell Ralli v. Rytman Grain 2-612 2-609 PERFECT TENDER RULE, 2-601, manner & effect of rightful rejection 2-602 Moulton v. LynFlex 2-605 written objection CURE Wilson v. Scampoli Ramirez v. AutoSport Plateq Corp. v. Machlett 2-508(2) 2-606 2-106(4) 2-711(1) what constitutes acceptance cancel K BR right to refund 1-205 2-508 2-719 multiple sources to right to cure right to cure REVOCATION OF ACCEPTANCE, 2-608 Rester v. Morrow Fortin v. Oxbow Marina POST FORMATION EXCUSES FOR NON-PERFORMANCE IMPOSSIBILITY 2-613 IMPRACTIBILITY Mishara v. Transit-Mixed Concrete 2-615 Louisiana Power v. Allegheny 2-609 2-712 FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE Chase v. Paonessa impractible cover 1-103 frustration of purpose LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, 2-718, restitution 2-718, specific performance, SR remedies, 2703 through 2-709 RECLAMATION Specific Performance 2-702 2-716(1) credit SR or 2-507(2) case -4- SR REMEDY UNACCEPTED GOODS Teradyne v. Teledyne BR REMEDY Tongish v. Thomas 2-713 Incidental Consequential Direct losses 2-715(1) 2-715(2) 2-714 STATUTE OF LIMITATION Jandreau Sheesley 2-725 BR damage for non-delivery -5-