Sales of Goods and the UCC - Module 1 of 8
See Also:
Module 1: Sales of Goods and the UCC
Article 2 of the UCC
The National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law
Institute collaborated to produce ten articles governing certain types of
commercial transactions. These articles are collectively known as the Uniform
Commercial Code, originally promulgated in 1962, which we’ll refer to as
the UCC or the “Code." The articles are originally based on the British
Sale of Goods Act and the Uniform Sales Act of the early twentieth century. The
Code is intended to serve as a model for state legislatures to adopt and
customize as they see fit.[1]
The UCC is not law in
itself. It is a model for states to follow and tailor to their goals. While all
states have enacted the UCC to one degree or another, there is some variance in
degree, especially with regards to amendments released periodically which
states are free to adopt or ignore.[2]
Article 2 of the UCC
deals with sales of goods. The goals of Article 2 are to simplify, clarify and
modernize the law of commercial transactions and to permit the expansion of
commercial transactions through custom, usage and agreement.[3] Article 2 applies to transactions in goods,
which is broader than just contracts for the sale of goods. Article 2A deals with leases to specifically
address those types of contracts.[4]
The UCC promotes the
freedom of contract where the parties may agree to the terms that they like, but
they may not disclaim the Code's requirements of “good faith, diligence,
reasonableness and care.”[5] The Code provides these minimum requirements
and leaves much to the discretion of the contracting parties. While Article 2 applies to transactions among
ordinary buyers and sellers, certain provisions of Article 2 apply only to
merchants. A "merchant" under
the Code is one who deals in the kind of goods sold or has knowledge or skills
particular to the goods involved in the transaction.[6]
Analysis of a
transaction under the UCC involves two basic inquiries: First, whether the parties entered into a
contract and, second, if there is a contract, what are the binding terms.[7] Even without complete agreement to all of the
terms, if there is an intent to be bound and a “reasonably certain” basis to
compute a remedy, the Code requirements are satisfied.[8]
Note that Article 2
only applies to goods and not services. Goods are defined as things that
are movable.[9] Growing crops and other things expected to be
severed from realty without harming the realty itself are also goods.[10] Mineral, oil, gas and buildings are goods if
the seller severs them from the ground, but if the buyer is expected to do so,
then they are not goods, but realty. Contracts to sever oil and gas by the
buyer are not governed by Article 2. Services, labor and legal causes of action
are also not goods.
Mixed transactions,
which are sales that include both goods and services, can lead to varying court
interpretations. For example, electricity
has divided the courts. Electricity
could be considered a movable good provided to customers or a service generated
for the benefit of customers. In one case, the blood used in a transfusion was
found by the court to be a service.[11]
There are two tests
to determine whether something is a good or a service and therefore whether
Article 2 applies. Under the predominant purpose test, which is the
majority view, the courts look at the predominant component in the transaction
and accordingly categorize the subject of the transaction as a good or service.
Under the gravamen test, which is the minority view, the court will look
to the target of the complaint. If the
subject of the complaint is a good, then the Code will apply.[12]
Article 9 of the UCC
governs the creation of security interests in goods, which entitle a seller who
extends credit to repossess the good for lack of payment. While Article 9
governs the security interest, Article 2 governs the underlying sale of goods. The
Code is not intended to repeal or in any way impair statutes intended to
protect certain persons such as consumers and farmers.
Forming a Sales Contract
At common law, there
was a presumption that an acceptance must be in the same manner or means by
which the offer was made.[13] Under Article 2, if an offeror makes an offer
but does not specify the manner or means of acceptance then acceptance may be
in any manner and by any means that are reasonable under the circumstances.[14]
Article 2 also
addresses unilateral and bilateral contracts. The offeror can request a return promise in
what is called a "bilateral contract" or a return performance in what
is called a "unilateral contract." In the absence of a suitable designation by the offeror, the common law
favored the establishment of a bilateral contract, but either is acceptable
under Article 2.[15] Moreover, a seller can accept a buyer's offer simply by shipping the goods called
for by the contract without an overt acknowledgement of the offer. For example,
an online or mailed order can be processed with or without a confirmation
email.
If the seller ships
goods that do not conform to the buyer's specifications or reasonable expectations,
then the goods are said to be "nonconforming."[16] A seller that ships non-conforming goods while
telling the buyer that he is requesting an “accommodation,” has effectively
made a counteroffer to the buyer that the buyer may accept or reject. If the
seller does not inform the buyer that he is requesting accommodation, then the
seller has effectively accepted the buyer's original offer and the seller has
breached the contract by shipping non-conforming goods.[17]
Under the common law,
an offeror could revoke an offer at any time prior to acceptance. Under Article 2, an offeror's eligibility to
revoke an offer is limited if the other party has initiated the requested
performance.[18] If the person to whom the offer is made,
called the "offeree," gives the offeror notice that performance has
begun within a "reasonable time" after commencing performance (such
as with a confirmation email), then the offer is deemed accepted.[19]
This rule protects the offeror because it affords the offeror notice that there
is a valid acceptance. It additionally protects the offeree because the rule
precludes revocation by the offeror. The common scenario is the case of
specially-manufactured goods.
For example, imagine that Golden State Vineyards orders, from Northwest Corporation, special vats for its wines that are not available commercially and must be custom made. The job would reasonably take about three months. Northwest begins constructing the vats but does not tell Golden State it is doing so. Four months later, the company decides it does not want the vats and so informs Northwest. Northwest objects and insists it has a valid contract. Since Northwest began performance without notifying Golden State, it might not be able to establish a valid claim against Golden State.
Under the common law, offers were considered revocable at any time and for any reason (before acceptance) unless there was some consideration paid for keeping the offer open. However, to promote efficient commercial transactions and prevent an offeror from withdrawing an offer in an untimely way that potentially confounds the expectations of the offeree, Article 2 provides a firm offer rule.[20] Under this provision, if a merchant makes an offer to sell or buy goods that gives assurances that the offer will not be withdrawn for a stated or reasonable time, it is irrevocable. The offer must be communicated in a signed writing. If it does not specify an amount of time for which it will be held open, it is held open for a reasonable time, not to exceed three months.
Contract Terms
The parties to a
contract may agree to any terms that are not “manifestly unreasonable.”[21]
Many provisions of Article 2, such as implied warranties and guarantees or
assumptions, may be disclaimed or waived upon mutual agreement of the parties. However,
disclaimers and waivers may be expressly stated by the parties or implied by
their words or conduct. Article 2 itself provides the language the parties may
use to disclaim and waive specific provisions, especially in cases of
warranties. However, note that the parties may not disclaim Article 2's
requirements of “good faith, diligence and reasonableness.”[22] “Good faith” means honesty and the observance
of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.[23]
The parties also may
not waive the right to make a claim if a contract is unconscionable.[24] An unconscionable contract is a deal that is
so one-sided that the courts will not enforce the contract.[25]
For example, assume Golden State Vineyards buys several
grape-processing machines on credit from Sonoma Processing Equipment. The loan is structured as a series of loans,
each one for a different machine.
According to the sales contract, Golden State’s default of payment on
any one loan at any time entitles Sonoma to repossess each of Golden State’s machines
for which there is an outstanding loan due. Moreover, payments are prorated over all of the machines, to make it
difficult for Golden State to pay off the loan on any one machine. If Golden State did not understand the loan or
a court finds its terms unconscionable, then the contract could be ruled unenforceable.[26] Note that the sophistication of the parties
may work to favor enforcement of the contract if the court finds that Golden
State understood the onerous terms but proceeded anyway.
The Code allows
agreements to be enforceable even if important terms are missing or were never
discussed. Missing terms may be supplied by the Code's default rules and
"gap-filler" provisions. Default rules are rules that the Code
supplies in specific situations and "gap-filler" rules are provisions
that can be inferred by the conduct of the parties, custom and industry practices.[27] Courts use a structured hierarchy in the UCC
to interpret terms implied in a contract. They are the parties' prior course of
performance, prior course of dealing and usage of trade.
The prior course
of performance means the repeated conduct in a particular transaction by the
parties without objection.[28] Prior course of dealing is similar to
prior course of performance, but pertains to the conduct of the parties over a
series of transactions.[29] Prior course of dealing establishes a common
basis of understanding for interpreting the expressions of the parties and
their other conduct. Usage of trade is a regular practice or method in
the industry of such regularity that it justifies an expectation that it will
be observed in certain other transactions.[30]
In a given
transaction, the terms of the contract control its interpretation in the event
of a dispute. If the terms are unclear
then the parties can resort to the prior course of performance, prior course of
dealing and usage of trade, in that order of priority.[31]
For example, assume Golden State Vineyards orders wine
racks from Sierra Corporation to store its wine bottles. Sierra ships and
Golden State receives a series of several wine racks for its chardonnay wines.
Golden State makes payment and orders more wine racks, but it then begins to
offer a more profitable port wine which uses a different-sized bottle. Golden State
was under the impression that the type of rack was irrelevant and that it could
receive a different size by simply informing Sierra. Sierra was counting on selling its
chardonnay-sized racks to Golden State and refuses to change the types of racks
they were sending. Each side suspends
performance. In resolving the dispute, a
court might find that the prior course of performance indicated that the
chardonnay-sized racks were suitable. Whether or not Golden State can exercise a claim to select a different
size may depend on the prior course of dealing between the parties or what is
customary in the industry.
Default Terms
A contract may exist
under Article 2 without a price term.[32] The default price is a “reasonable” price at
the time of delivery. Alternatively, the parties may designate the buyer or
seller as the one who will determine the price term, though that party must do
so in good faith. If the party fails to do so and is at fault, then the other
party may treat the contract as canceled or valid for a reasonable price term.
The parties can also establish price determination by reference to an external
mechanism, such as a market quote. So, for example, the parties may agree on
August 1 that the buyer will purchase 100 widgets on November 1 for whatever
price widgets are typically being sold for in a given city on that date.
Article 2 also provides
default rules for delivery should the parties fail to specify delivery
terms.[33] Delivery must be made within a reasonable
time and, unless otherwise agreed, delivery must be made in one shipment. If
delivery is to be in separate shipments, then payment is due for each
individual shipment after it is accepted. The default place of delivery is the
seller’s place of business or, if none, the seller’s residence. Article 2
therefore provides a default rule that the buyer must pick up the goods. If the
goods are identified as occupying a particular place (for example, “the red
2020 Toyota parked in the parking lot at 123 Elm Street”), then delivery is at
that place. The buyer will be expected to go to the place and pick up the
goods.
Default rules are
also set forth for payment. The buyer is obligated to pay for the goods at the
time and place of receipt, rather than at the shipment of the goods.[34] Moreover, the buyer has a right of inspection
when the goods are delivered and the obligation to pay for the goods arises
only after there has been reasonable time for inspection.[35] If
the inspection reveals a problem with the shipment, the buyer may refuse
delivery. Of course, an unjustified rejection of a delivery is considered a
breach of contract.
Other Types of Contracts
Article 2 provides
for specific types of contracts that would ordinarily be unenforceable at
common law under the doctrine of mutuality of consideration. These include
output, requirements and exclusive dealing contracts.[36]
Though these agreements are technically illusory, because one party or the
other has the discretion or ability to avoid performance under the agreements,
the UCC allows them because they are commercially desirable for their
flexibility.
Output and
requirements contracts have no specific quantity term that is negotiated by the
parties. Instead, in an output
contract, the quantity is the amount of goods the seller can produce in a
given period of time. In a requirements contract, the quantity is the
amount the buyer requires in a given period of time. Under the common law, these may be
unenforceable because they are illusory promises as the production or
requirement may be entirely at the discretion of a party. The seller might “output”
nothing under an output contract and the buyer might “require” nothing under a
requirements contract.[37]
While the UCC allows
for the enforceability of these contracts, it requires that the parties act in
good faith.[38] They must “output” or “require” a reasonable
amount under the circumstances based on the reasonable expectations of the
parties at the outset of the agreement. Alternatively, the parties may elect to
provide estimated amounts to make explicit their expectations under the
contract. These estimated amounts can assist a court in interpreting the
contract should there be a dispute.
Similarly, in an exclusive
dealings contract, one party agrees to deal exclusively with the other party,
or both may agree to exclusively deal with each other.[39]
In the former case, where, for example, a wholesaler might agree to sell its
goods exclusively through a retailer, it’s possible that one party (the
retailer in our case) may not be agreeing to any specific performance.
Nevertheless, the agreement is considered enforceable, and the Code imputes a
requirement of good faith on both parties. In our example, it is implied that
the retailer will purchase a reasonable amount of goods from the wholesaler to
justify the expectations of the exclusive relationship.
In our next module, we’ll turn to the transactional elements of contracts for the sales of goods, including writing and interpretation of contract terms and modifications of sales contract agreements.
[1] Henry D. Gabriel and Linda J. Rusch. The ABCs of the UCC: (Revised) Article 2:Sales. 1-4. (2004). This text is a good overview of the UCC but treats the proposed 2003 UCC revisions at length, which were abandoned in 2011 because no state chose to adopt them. Those discarded provisions were of course ignored in preparing these materials.
[11] See Perlmutter v. Beth DavidHospital 308 N.Y. 100, 123 N.E.2d792 (1954) as discussed in Sale of Goods in Service-Predominated Transactions, 37 Fordham L. Rev. 115 (1968). Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol37/iss1/5.
[25] See James J. White and Robert S. Summers, West Hornbook Series, Uniform Commercial Code, 6th Ed. §§ 5-1 – 5-9 (2010).