UCC and Common Law Case Scenarios - - Essay Example

UCC and Common Law UCC and Common Law Comparison and Contrast Uniform Commercial (UCC) and the common law are used in the United States of America to govern contracts. The former law deals with commodities and tangible goods while the latter apply to contracts in services, intangible assets, employment, insurance and real estate (Miller & Jentz, 2012). The following is a review of case scenarios and questions associated with them.Scenario 1: Gap Filling Rule (Cereal, Inc)In this scenario, Grocery Inc has a written agreement with Cereal Inc on the monthly purchase of 20 cases of cereals at $22.

In the contract, it is not specific on the types of cereal or the distribution to the different branches of Grocery Inc. Due to floods, Cereal Inc warehouse is flooded and cereals destroyed that result in the inability to supply as stated in the contract. However, soggy flakes is not damaged and supplies 10 bags to grocery Inc. Besides, before the delivery was made, Grocery Inc had requested to be supplied with a variety of cereals at its different stores. Due to the inconvenience Grocery Inc wants to turn down the supply and terminate the contract.

Question Is Grocery Inc correct to do so and what are the rights?Even though it is within their rights to be supplied with the cereals they had specified at different stores, a complication will arise if they cancel the supply and the contract. The supplier will protect themselves by using the gap-filling rule. In the contract, it is not specified what type of cereals to be supplied or where to be supplied. The gap can be used in the defense that Cereal Inc had the right to choose what to supply and where to deliver it.

The gap-filling rule gives a party of the contract the possibility of concluding some aspects of the contract that are not specific. In this case, it was not articulate on the type of cereals to be supplied or the store they were to be delivered. Cereal Inc can use this as its defense as the cause of the damages was not deliberate and the fact that inability to make the supplies was not the intention at the time of signing the contract. The amicable way of dealing with this case is for both parties to have a consensus.

Grocery Inc should not be in a hurry to terminate the contract and cancel the supplies. They should give Cereal Inc time to recover from the loss. Alternatively, the contract can be amended such that it is specific on the type of supplies and the destination.Scenario 2Tom had promised to sell his model trains to Harry once he retired. Harry prepared by building a house to store them and borrowed money to pay for them. However, when the time came Tom did not honor his promise. Tom was sued by Harry for breach of contract.

Harry wins for Tom has changed terms of the contract that is wrong under common law and be compensated for his economic loss under promissory estoppel. However, Tom will argue that there was no written agreement and that he had the right to decide whom to sell his products to. The possible remedy is for the two parties to review their terms and agree for compensation on the damages caused by Tom to Harry via his breached promise (Miller, 2012).ReferencesMiller, R. L. R. (2012). Modern principles of business law: Contracts, the UCC, and business organizations.

Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.Miller, R. L. R., & Jentz, G. A. (2012). Fundamentals of business law. Mason, Ohio: South-Western.