LS 5523 Ch 20/21 Quiz

Brad leaves a tablet computer at Computer Sales & Repair (CSR) to have the battery replaced. CSR sells the tablet to Doris, who does not know that it belongs to Brad. Brad can recover from

CSR. (Example of entrustment. Brad cannot recover from Doris, she has good title, but CSR converted the tablet and may be held liable. Entrustment rule allows innocent buyers to obtain legitimate title to goods purchased from merchants even if the merchants do not have good title.)

Mountainside Coffee Company and Nature's Cuisine, Inc., enter into a contract for a sale of coffee beans. The contract includes the term "F.O.B. Ocean City," which is the location of Nature's Cuisine. This means that the contract is

A destination contract.

Which of the following would be considered an acceptance under the UCC?

All of the above. (Offeree can make acceptance of the offer, even if it includes terms additional to or different from those contained in the offer.)

Rice River Farms, who only produces Grade A quality rice, offers to sell Sensei Sushi Restaurants, Inc., five hundred bushels of rice. Sensei responds, "We agree to buy five hundred bushels only if the rice is Grade A quality." This statement is

An acceptance. (Under common law this would be a counteroffer; Under the UCC, a contract is formed if the offeree's response indicates a definite acceptance of the offer, even if the acceptance includes terms additional to or different from those contained in the offer)

Rally Corporation enters into a contract to sell ski gear to Sno-Sports Inc., which sells a pair of the skis to Tyra, a consumer, who later sells them to Upton, another consumer. Article 2 of the UCC applies to the sales transactions between

all of the buyers and sellers. (In a limited number of instances, though, the UCC presumes that special provisions ought to be imposed because of merchants' relatively high degree of commercial expertise.)

Farmers Produce, Inc., and Growers Market enter into a contract for the delivery of locally grown fruits and vegetables. The parties use a standard Farmers Produce form that contains some of the terms the parties agree on but not others. Some of the produce spoils before it can be cooked, served, and eaten, or sold. Growers Market refuses to pay for the spoiled goods. Farmers Produce responds that it did not waive payment for spoiled goods in the parties' previous transaction. Farmers Produce is arguing that the court should take into account

Course of dealing. (Prior conduct, actions, and communications between parties to a contract that establishes a common basis for their understanding)

Assuming each of the following statements is true, which is most relevant in determining whether a party to an integrated sales contract can testify about a prior oral agreement that is not included in the written contract?

The prior oral agreement consists of additional consistent terms. (If terms are not consistent, parole evidence could be admissible)

Quinn enters into a series of agreements with Reba involving a sale of a Suite Dreams Motel, including the land, building, furnishings, shares of stock in Suite Dreams Company, and a contract with Trudy to create an ad campaign. Reba suspects that Quinn may be misrepresenting the facts. Of the above items, which is/are governed by the UCC Statute of Frauds provision?

The sale of the furnishings priced at $500 or more. (stocks/bonds, services, real estate/land, patents/copyrights are not governed by UCC; must be tangible and movable)

On September 1, 2012, Cogswell Cogs, a manufacturer of sprockets, mailed to Spacely's World Emporium, a sprocket retailer, a written offer consisting of only the following: "Have 1,000 size 12 sprockets available at $50 each for October 2012 delivery. Be advised that this offer will remain open only until October 1, 2012." Was an enforceable contract formed when, on October 22, 2012, Cogswell shipped the 575 sprockets to Spacely's?

None of the above. (answer would be Yes, because Cogswell's shipment constituted acceptance of the offer, absent a SEASONABLE notification by Cogswell to Spacely's that the shipment would have to be nonconforming.)

Assume for this question that no conflicting title laws exist. Nora pays for John's car with a bad check and takes it to OK Auto Sales & Service for repairs. OK sells the car at a fair price to Pete's Auto Emporium, which does not know about the bad check. Pete, of Pete's Auto Emporium, gives the car to his daughter as a present. The car is still in the daughter's possession. Which of the following is most accurate:

Nora cannot recover the car from Pete's daughter because, although Pete's daughter was not a buyer in the ordinary course of business, Pete's Auto Emporium was, and John cannot recover the car from Pete's daughter. (No one can recover the car from Pete's daughter because she has good title)

Assuming each of the following statements is true, which is most relevant in determining whether a contract is enforceable?

The contract omitted the quantity term. (In general, the only term that must be stated is quantity as a court cannot determine objectively how much of a good the buyer meant to purchase)

Assuming each of the following statements is true, which is most relevant in determining whether a contract is enforceable?

The contract shocked the conscience of the court. (So unfair and one-sided that it would unreasonable to enforce it)

Seller is in Austin, TX. Buyer is in Oklahoma City, OK. Assuming each of the following statements is true, which is most relevant in determining whether Roofing Company, the seller, bears the risk of loss when goods are destroyed?

The goods were destroyed in transit and the shipping term was "F.O.B. Austin, TX." (This explicitly states that Roofing Company, the seller in Austin, holds title and is liable.)

On September 1, 2012, Cogswell Cogs, a manufacturer of sprockets, mailed to Spacely's World Emporium, a sprocket retailer, a written offer consisting of only the following: "Have 1,000 size 12 sprockets available at $50 each for October 2012 delivery. Be advised that this offer will remain open only until October 1, 2012." Assume for this question only that Cogswell emailed Spacely on September 4, 2012 that it was revoking the offer. This revocation is

Valid because the offer was, in fact, not a merchant firm offer. (Not merchant firm offer because the contract was not signed; therefore, offeror can revoke the offer)

Ursula buys a Verismooth boat (for personal use) from a Watercraft store, which agrees to keep the boat for Ursula until she picks it up. Before Ursula gets the boat, an unforeseen tornado destroys the store and the boat. The loss of the boat is suffered by

Watercraft, because Ursula had yet to pick up the boat. (Under UCC, risk of loss to goods held by the seller passes to the buyer when the buyer actually takes physical possession of the goods If the seller is a merchant.)