Business Law in the UCC - Essay Example

This is because business transactions tend to overlap in more than one state (Stone & Kristen, 2008, p.26). A commodity may be manufactured in one state and transported by a transport company from another state to a buyer in a different state.

The code as it is deals with personal and movable property and real property which is always static like homes. This is the more reason the code applies to the case of Jack and Joseph. The TV sets are movable personal property that has been shipped from one state to the other.

The facts of this case are in disagreement with the terms of the contract as well as the condition of the goods. The goods arrived with an increased price contrary to the initial agreement although there was an initial notification of 10 days to which no response of acceptance or rejection was offered. Further, the buyer rejects the second consignment due to deformations and notifies the seller as soon as possible.

The UCC has provisions for the rejection of goods and outlines the circumstances under which the buyer might reject the goods. It further explains the method or procedure for rejecting the goods and the consideration that the seller should be given. These provisions include the buyer being able to reject any good or part of a delivery that does not conform to the contract. The rejection must be made more affirmative and should not be thought to be implied. This should be done by notifying the seller within a reasonable time.

Rejection should be done by providing a reasonable defect ascertainable by inspection. The seller should also be given time to cure the defect in which case he must offer to cure the defect. If the seller is not informed of the defect then it might be assumed the defect could be curable had he been notified in time (Klocek v. Gateway, 2000).

In this case, though the seller will argue that he informed the buyer of the changes in price before shipment, the notification on increase in price was by letter and so the buyer could reasonably have not found the letter and hence could not communicate back. But Joseph objects to the increase in price and immediately informs Jack as the bill of lading F.O.B destination. It is at this time that Joseph takes responsibility for the shipment and notices the change in price contrary to the contract argument (Article 2- 206, section 1). However, it is not clear whether he has made a rejection of the goods based on this or he has accepted the goods but objected to the price. If he accepts the goods and sells them, then he must pay the new price since it was an offer to be accepted within its terms.

In the case of the damaged shipment due to collision, Joseph is entitled to reject and since he has made Jack aware through the phone that he is not accepting the damaged goods (Article 2-209,1). The damage to the TV sets can easily be assessed at arrival because it is physical damage. Moreover, Jack has not asked to be given time to cure the damage.

This case can be compared to Klocek v. Gateway, whose circumstances and ruling are closely related to this one. In this case, I would rule on liability to Jack for breach of contract.