How does the UCC modify the mirror image rule? Part 2

by: USLawEssentials

Download this transcript

Transcript:

[0.03]
in this video we'll continue to look at how the Uniform Commercial Code the UCC modifies the mirror image rule if you recall in part one we looked at additional terms such as where a buyer orders ten apples for a hundred dollars and the sellers acceptance says sure ten apples one hundred dollars and we'll be wrapping those apples in plastic and we learned additional terms can become part of the contract unless they materially alter the contract or if the offeror says you can't add any terms to this offer or finally if the offeror objects to the additional terms within a reasonable amount of time but now let's say we have two merchants and a buyer decides to order some tires she orders ten tires for five hundred dollars and she has a provision stating that any dispute must be litigated within three years in other words if a party discovered a problem in connection with the contract in 2015 she would have until 2018 to commence the lawsuit and the seller states that he accepts the offer but his acceptance form says sure ten tires for five hundred dollars but any litigation must be brought within one year so here we have different or contradicting terms under the traditional mirror image rule because the sellers terms are different from the buyers terms we would not have a contract but the UCC tells us that even if an acceptance doesn't match the offer we can still have a contract and there are three major approaches that courts take to deal with contradictory or different terms in an acceptance and the most common approach is called the knock out rule which we'll be looking at in this video and our two other approaches are the call out rule and to treat the contradictory terms the same as additional terms under the knock out rule the contradictory terms are going to knock each other out they're going to be taken out of the contract we have ten tires for five hundred dollars but the contradictory terms should be eliminated under the knockout rule now our contract has the terms that the parties agreed on ten tires for five hundred dollars so far so good but how long do parties have to commence a lawsuit remember the court just knocked those contradictory terms out of the contract the answer is that the Uniform Commercial Code that statute will provide us with the missing terms in this case the UCC would probably tell us that the parties should have four years to commence a litigation so if there's a problem in connection with the contract that's discovered in 2015 parties will have until 2019 to commence a litigation if you have any questions about the UCC or any other matter related to US law feel free to submit your comments below and stop on my



Description:
More from this creator:
How does the UCC modify the mirror image rule? This video discusses how the UCC modifies the common law mirror image rule, focusing on the "Knockout Rule" where an acceptance contains a term that contradicts a term in the offer. To discuss further, feel free to send me an email and to comment below. Also, please visit my website: website: http://www.uslawessentials.com

blog: http://www.uslawessentials.com/blog

Twitter:https://twitter.com/uslawessentials

United States Law: An Introduction for International Students is available at: https://www.amazon.com/author/danieledelson

Disclaimer:
TranscriptionTube is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com
Contact:
You may contact the administrative operations team of TranscriptionTube with any inquiries here: Contact
Policy:
You may read and review our privacy policy and terms of conditions here: Policy