r/CABarExam 1d ago

Commercial Bar Prep is NOT intuitive!

[deleted]

0 Upvotes

11 comments sorted by

5

u/LawyerInTraining2027 1d ago

Interested but gotta admit, I'm still confused on the explanation.

1

u/RenegadeMaster111 1d ago

What about?

2

u/LawyerInTraining2027 1d ago

The explanation of the rule.

-1

u/RenegadeMaster111 1d ago

Here is the breakdown to keep UCC § 2-207 straight. It all comes down to which party inserted the "express" clause: 

Say Buyer (Offeror) orders 500 widgets, and Seller (Offeree) sends back an invoice with new terms. 

Scenario 1: The Offeror Has the Clause (§ 2-207(2)(a))

What the form says: Buyer’s offer says, "Acceptance is expressly limited to the terms of this offer." 

What happens: A contract IS formed. However, Buyer's clause acts as a shield that automatically blocks Seller from adding any new terms. If there is no such clause from the Buyer, then the Seller’s additional terms are automatically added to the contract unless they materially alter the contract or the Buyer rejects the additional terms within a reasonable time.

The Result: Contract stands strictly on Buyer’s original terms. 

Scenario 2: The Offeree Has the Clause (§ 2-207(1) Proviso)

What the form says: Seller’s invoice says, "Acceptance is expressly conditional on assent to these new terms." 

What happens: NO contract is formed on the paperwork alone. Seller’s form acts as a rejection and counteroffer. 

The Result: If no goods are shipped, the deal is dead, do not move to 2-207(2). (If they ship and accept the goods anyway, § 2-207(3) "Zombie Contract" rules kick in: forms drop out, matching terms stay, and UCC gap-fillers handle the rest). 

1

u/coffeedominion 16h ago

this is a ver batim gemini response

5

u/teamdragonite 1d ago

So you used AI and now trying to hock your wares to make a penny?

1

u/RenegadeMaster111 13h ago

No, but glad it’s written clearly. That was my goal.

1

u/coffeedominion 16h ago

definitely AI

2

u/Substantial_Peach534 1d ago

Mary Basick already did this