Posted on

UCC 2-207 Flowchart: Battle of the Forms

UCC 2-207 Flowchart

Download a .pdf version of the UCC 2-207 flowchart

When it is not exactly clear what parties agreed upon but it is clear that the parties intended to agree, a court must determine what terms apply. If various forms have been sent back and forth between the parties common law only gives us two options to apply to the forms: Offer and Acceptance or Counteroffer. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) gives us a third option: acceptance with additional terms.

UCC 2-207 Flowchart
UCC 2-207 Flowchart

This option can be found in the UCC 2-207. The goal of 2-207 is to determine which terms apply from the contract negotiation; however, the language of the section can be very confusing and hard to follow. This UCC 2-207 flowchart should be helpful in navigating this section of the UCC.

Download a .pdf version of the UCC 2-207 flowchart

 

For an example of the Battle of the Forms in action see Brown Machine, Inc. v. Hercules, Inc.

 

Posted on

Harlow & Jones, Inc. v. Advance Steel Co., 424 F. Supp. 770 (E.D. Mich. 1976)

Case Name: Harlow & Jones, Inc. v. Advance Steel Co.
Plaintiff: Harlow & Jones, Inc.
Defendant: Advance Steel Co.
Citation: 424 F. Supp. 770 (E.D. Mich. 1976)

Issue: Under the UCC, did the defendant breach a contract when he refused the last of three deliveries because he believed it was being delivered late?

Key Facts: Defendant had several telephone conversations with William VanAs, a broker for the plaintiff. During these conversations, VanAs informed the defendant about the availability of 5000 metric tons of steel that could be shipped during September-October, 1974 and defendant informed VanAs that he was interested in purchasing 1000 tons of this shipment. VanAs recorded the terms of this transaction on a worksheet and relayed the information to the plaintiff. In July, 1974, the plaintiff mailed the defendant a sales form confirming the sale of 1000 metric tons which shipment from Europe during Sept-Oct, 1974. The plaintiff then ordered the 1000 tons of steel from Europe. The defendant did not sign or return the plaintiff’s sales form but prepared and mailed his own purchase order form (which contained the same quantities, shipping dates, and minor specification changes. This was never signed and returned by plaintiff. The steel came from Europe in three separate shipments. The first two shipments were received and paid by Advance. The last shipment arrived in late November which the defendant rejected because of “late delivery.”

Procedural History: None because the case is in the District Court (trial court) and is not on appeal.

Holding: The defendant did breach the contract by rejecting the last shipment. The terms of the oral agreement were to ship the steel by October and under UCC 2-504 the defendant could only reject the shipment if there was a “material delay.” Because steel takes an average of one month to ship from Europe; although the steel was shipped late, it did arrive by late November so there was no material delay.

Reasoning: The plaintiff and defendant were arguing that they were abiding by what they thought was a written contract. Plaintiff argued for his sales form and defendant for his purchase order form. The court decided that the sales form and purchase order form were merely confirmations of an order because the actual agreement took place through the several telephone conversations. According to the UCC, this means that the “contract” was an integration of the two forms and is made up of the terms that the two parties agree on.

Notes:

  • Do not need specific oral or written offer and acceptance if you have clear conduct that shows the parties entered into an arrangement (i.e. Advance was accepting shipments, even one that came after October 31st)
  • Also true under the Restatement even if you can’t point to the exact offer and acceptance by the parties. The difference is how the court would fill in “gaps.”

 

Posted on

Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. American Ash Recycling Corp. of Pennsylvania

Case Name: Pennsy Supply, Inc. v. American Ash Recycling Corp. of Pennsylvania
Citation: Pennsylvania Superior Court; 895 A.2d 595 (2006)
Plaintiff/Appellant: Pennsy Supply, Inc.
Defendant/Appellee: American Ash Recycling Corp. of Pennsylvania

Issue: Whether consideration existed in the contract between the plaintiff and defendant when defendant allegedly avoided disposal costs by supplying plaintiff materials at no cost.

Key Facts: The plaintiff had secured a subcontractor job for the paving of driveways and parking lots. The project specifications included a notice of availability of a material known as AggRite that could be used for base aggregates and was available at no cost from the defendant. The plaintiff contacted the defendant, informed them on the amount it needed, picked it up, and used it for the paving work. Two months after the paving work was completed, there were substantial defects in the pavement and the plaintiff had to perform remedial work which cost the plaintiff $250,000. Furthermore, it incurred an additional $133,000 to dispose of the AggRite it had received from the defendant. The plaintiff filed a five-count complaint alleging (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (3) breach of express warranty of merchantability, (4) breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (5) promissory estoppel.

Procedural History: The defendant filed demurrers to all five counts and the trial court sustained the demurrers and dismissed the complaint. The trial court believed the defendant only made a conditional gift to the plaintiff and therefore the contract did not have consideration. They stated that the disposal costs were a mere condition of the defendant’s gift.

Holding: The trial court erred in its dismissal because if the alleged facts are proven, it would show consideration because the promise induced the detriment of incurring disposal costs and the detriment of those disposal costs induced the promise from the defendant.

Reasoning: If the complaint is true that the defendant “actively promotes the use of AggRite as a building material” to be used for purposes the plaintiff was engaging in, then by the defendant providing the materials free of charge, they are seeking others to dispose of the material in order to avoid incurring the disposal costs itself. The material provided by the defendant saved the defendant thousands of dollars in disposal costs it otherwise would have incurred.
The Superior Court also examined whether consideration is lacking because the plaintiff did not allege (or understand) the defendant’s avoidance of disposal costs during the bargaining process between the parties. The court did not believe this was necessary because for consideration to exist “the promise and the consideration be in “the relation of reciprocal conventional inducement, each for the other”” (O. Holmes).

Judgment: The Superior Court reversed the trial court’s decision of dismissing the Complaint and remanded it back to the trial court for further proceedings.

Posted on

Princess Cruises, Inc. v. General Electric Co. – 143 F.3d 828 (4th Cir. 1998)

Case Name: Princess Cruises, Inc. v. General Electric Co.
Citation: 143 F.3d 828 (4th Cir. 1998)
Plaintiff/Appellee: Princess Cruises, Inc.
Defendant/Appellant: General Electric Co.

Issue: Whether the district court erred in applying the UCC to the contract and whether the jury erred in their award by not observing GE’s final price quotation.

Key Facts: The plaintiff submitted a purchase order (intended to be an offer) to the defendant to perform routine inspection services and repairs on one of its cruise ships. The defendant faxed back its own Fixed Price Quotation which had other terms and disclaimed any liability for consequential damages, lost profits, or lost revenue.
During the inspection, the defendant recommended that the ship be taken ashore for cleaning and balancing. During the cleaning the rotor became unbalanced, which the defendant attempted to correct. The imbalance caused further damage to the ship forcing additional repairs and the cancellation of two tend-day cruises. The plaintiff paid the defendant the full amount of the contract ($231,925).

Procedural History: A jury found GE liable for breach of contract and awarded the plaintiff $4.5 million in damages. Appealing, GE contends that the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment which required the court to vacate the jury’s award of incidental and consequential damages. GE argues that the district court erred because it applied UCC principles, rather than common-law, to a contract primarily for services.

Holding: The contract should not have been evaluated under the UCC because it was a contract for services and the jury should have only considered GE’s Final Price Quotation which restricted damages to the contract price and eliminated liability for incidental or consequential damages, lost profits, or revenue.

Reasoning: First, whether a particular transaction is governed by the UCC, rather than common or statutory law, hinges on whether the contract primarily concerns the furnishing of goods or the rendering of services. Princess’s actual purchase description requests a GE “service engineer” to perform service functions (the contract included incidental parts that were expensive).
Second, the jury should have only considered GE’s Final Price Quotation as the contract. The first purchase order submitted by Princess was rejected by a counteroffer (GE’s first price quotation) which in turn, was revoked and replaced by another offer (GE’s Final Price Quotation. Also, because Princess failed to discuss the conflicting terms of the two contracts, their inaction gave GE every reason to believe that Princess assented to the terms set forth in their final price quotation.

Restatement 19 – “The manifestation of assent may be made wholly or partly by written or spoken words or by other acts or by failure to act.” Under the Restatement, a counter-offer destroys the offer.  The fact that the parties performed evidence that there was an acceptance. The phone call giving GE permission to proceed and that Princess brought their ship in to be repaired. Therefore, Princess intended to accept the last counter-offer by GE. This is called the last-shot rule. Whatever is left on the table is the contract. The only one that really matters is the last contract on the table. If the parties perform, then there is an acceptance.

Judgment: The circuit court reversed the district court’s decision and granted GE’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and remanded to modify the judgment according to common-law and the opinion of the court.

Why it was important to determine whether common law or the UCC applied: Common law only gives us two options in contract formation: Offer and Acceptance or Counteroffer. The UCC gives us a third option: acceptance with additional terms.

Posted on

Brown Machine, Inc. v. Hercules, Inc. – 770 S.W.2d 416 (1989)

Case name: Brown Machine, Inc. v. Hercules, Inc.
Citation: 770 S.W.2d 416 (1989)
Plaintiff: Brown Machine, Inc.
Defendant: Hercules, Inc.

Issue: Whether the parties had agreed to an indemnification provision in their contract.

Key Facts: The plaintiff, Brown Machine, sold the defendant, Hercules, a T-100 trim press. Prior to the sale, a proposal was submitted to the defendant which stated an indemnification clause. The defendant reviewed the proposal and spoke on the phone with the plaintiff but objected to the payment term in the proposal. The plaintiff contested that the proposal was an offer and this conversation was an acceptance.
The defendant then submitted a purchase order (actual offer) for the trim press which stated that it “limits acceptance to the terms stated…any additional or different terms proposed by the seller are rejected unless expressly agreed to in writing.”
The plaintiff then sent the defendant an order acknowledgement which again stated the indemnification clause. The defendant responded with a latter that stated a specification in the product needed to be changed but “all other specifications are correct.” The plaintiff contended that this constituted assent by the defendant to the indemnification clause but the judge said it was obvious that “specifications” only referred to the product and not the terms and conditions.

Procedural History: The trial court awarded the plaintiff for the defendant violating the indemnification provision.

Analysis: If this was common law, we would use the last shot rule. However, under the UCC we use acceptance with additional terms (Section 2-207).

Holding: The parties had not agreed to an indemnification provision.

Judgment: The court reversed the trial court’s decision.

See our helpful UCC 2-207 Flowchart

Posted on

Consideration

Consideration is a crucial concept in understanding Contract Law. The making of a promise (offer and acceptance) is insufficient by itself to result in the formation of a contract.* The additional requirement is the presence of “consideration.”

The concept of consideration has developed over the years. In 1875 consideration was defined as:

“A valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other.”

Consideration means not so much that one party is profiting as that the other abandons some legal right in the present or limits his legal freedom of action in the future as an inducement for the promise of the first. The idea behind consideration is determining the types of contracts we want to enforce. The main type of contract we don’t want to enforce is a gift.

The court now explains that consideration requires a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promise that is bargained for. In other words, benefit or detriment are insufficient to constitute consideration. However, according to Pennsy Supply the requirement that consideration be bargained for does not require actual bargaining between the parties.

The court uses the Homlesian test of “reciprocal conventional inducement, each for the other.” (Bargaining theory of consideration). “The promise must induce the detriment and the detriment must induce the promise.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The Restatement adopts the bargain theory of consideration and rejects any additional requirement of benefit or detriment.

*Note: International contract law recognizes that a contract can be formed without the additional requirement of consideration.