Case Study on "UCC Contract Law"

Case Study 6 pages (1775 words) Sources: 1

[EXCERPT] . . . .

UCC Contract Law

Transamerica Oil Corporation v. Lynes

Case Brief

Procedural History:

Transamerica Oil Corporation v. Laynes is a part of a larger case involving Baker International. They are the parent company of Laynes. In the lower court ruling, Transamerica prevailed. Where, the court determined that the Kansas Universal Commercial Code (UCC) was breached when it came to an expressed warranty. As the court awarded damages to the plaintiff for $196,577.72 (more than they spent on the injector packers that were purchased).This decision is taking into account the statute of limitations and the validity of disclaimers from both sides.

Facts:

Transamerica is a drilling company that is focused on: the exploration / development of oil / natural gas wells and capping them for use at a future date. In a popular trade magazine the company's CEO saw an advertisement for an innovative new product called: production injector packers. This is a device that is used, as a way of effectively sealing off the bore hole on a temporary basis. The company that was selling this product, (Laynes) was claiming that these could be used to permanently seal the well.

They were engaging in these activities through: their sales representatives indirectly discussing the product with perspective customers. As, they will mention how: the device can be successfully used to cap the well on a permanent basis. Yet, in reality they we no more than short to medium term solutions for plugging the well. When the product was being marketed to Transamerica, the company represented it verbally as a per

Continue scrolling to

download full paper ⤓

manent way of capping the bore hole. Once Transamerica received the shipment, they were presented with paper work claiming an expressed or implied warranty is not valid. It also prevented the buyer from receiving any kind of cash refund for the product. Instead, they would be eligible to receive an exchange or a credit with Laynes. Transamerica filed a suit, based on the fact that the production injectors failed to perform properly. The plaintiff is asserting that this is a violation of an implied warranty that is in place.

Issue:

Transamerica Oil Corporation v. Lanes is one that is a conflict of the Kansas statute and the uniform commercial code. As, Transamerica is suing based on: the fact that an expressed warranty was in place, before they received the injection packers. However, Laynes is believes that these claims are invalid because the suit was filed based upon the Kansas statute. Under the law, there is a statute of limitations of three years. What makes this case interesting is that the briefs were filed between years three and four. Under UCC guidelines, the plaintiff could proceed with the case. The main issues of contention are: does the plaintiff have a claim under UCC standards or are the Kansas statues relevant. At the same time, how is an expressed warranty applied given the fact that the two standards that are being argued (which have opposing views).

Answer / Holding:

The answer to these issues, the court sided with the plaintiff. Where, they reversed the decision and remanded it back to the lower court for review.

Reasoning:

The appellate court based their decision on the fact that key evidence was withheld at the trial that would have influenced the outcome of the case. What happened is Laynes was not allowed to present a series of documents with the CEO's signature at the time of delivery. The fact that he signed them is acknowledging that he understands and agrees that the terms of the agreement have changed. This negates any possibility of an implied warranty. Second, the defendants were refused to present evidence showing that was no cash refunds. As, Transamerica executives understood that they were able to exchange the devices or receive some type of a credit (prior to delivery). They also found that UCC guidelines are applicable for the terms of the contract. This is significant, because it is showing how two different legal standards were used to make arguments during the appeal. The court determined which one was applicable under the law. Then, they made an interpretation based on the fact that key evidence was omitted during the trial that influenced the outcome of the case.

Disposition:

The appellate court sided with Laynes in the case. This is based on the fact that key evidence was showing that Transamerica accepted the changing terms of the agreement (which was omitted during the trial). This changes the dynamics of the case, as the signed statement of the new terms (at the time of delivery) is an indication that the company knew that these were not permanent seals.

Under UCC guidelines, this means that an expressed warranty did not exist. Instead, it was a limited warranty that was based upon the new terms and conditions that the CEO agreed to. This occurred when he accepted delivery of the product and signed the back of the invoice (where the new terms were listed). When you put both of these facts together, this is an indication that the Transamerica was aware of the changes in warranty and that the injection packers were not a permanent solution to their problems. This is significant, because it is showing how the appellate court would apply case law and precedent differently in comparison with the lower court. Once this happened, it meant that the ruling would change, as they determined that the omission of key evidence were vital facts that influenced the outcome of the case. Therefore, they sent the case back to the lower court for further review based on these guidelines.

Wendling v. Puls & Watson

Procedural History:

This case was heard in the Kansas Supreme Court and was appealed from the Harvey County District Court. The original judgment was in favor of the plaintiff. The damages were calculated based on the differences between: the market prices and the contracted prices on the delivery date that was originally scheduled (subtracting the down payment).

Facts:

This case is based upon: how damages are assessed and what is considered to be an oral contract. What happened was, the defendants agreed to purchase 103 head of cattle from the plaintiff. Where, they reached a consensus on: the date, price and a check was submitted as a down payment. In the memo portion, there was the phrase, "103 cattle" written at the bottom. After delaying the delivery of the cows by one week, the defendants refused to accept the product. As, they agreed to: predetermined dates, when they were suppose to pick up the livestock. Yet, no one would meet the plaintiff to finalize the deal. Frustrated, the plaintiff made numerous attempts to complete the transaction. After he was unable to come to a successful conclusion, he began to search for other buyers to purchase the cattle. At which point, they located another party and the subsequently completed the transaction with the plaintiff.

However, there were added costs from this delay and the price received for the heard was lower. This is because, so much time had elapsed (from the actions of the defendant) that the plaintiffs had lost money in selling their cattle to the highest bidder. As this delay, meant that they could not find another buyer when prices were high. At the same time, there were increased costs of: storing, feeding and transporting the cattle. To the meeting locations that plaintiffs did not attend. After, several failed attempts to make final delivery, is when the costs began to increase to the point that they impacted the plaintiff's profit margins.

Issue:

The defendants appealed the decision of the lower court, claiming that the contract was unenforceable and the way damages were calculated granted excessive awards to the plaintiff.

Answer/Holding:

The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.

Reasoning:

The Kansas Supreme Court believes that the contract is enforceable. This is based upon the fact that the defendants admitted that they were aware of agreement. Furthermore, the written notation at the bottom of the check is proof of them having knowledge of the actions that they were taking.

The calculations that were used to determine damages were correct. As they found that, time was: of importance to the plaintiff and that they were not under any kind of resale obligations. Evidence of this can be seen with court saying, "In electing to forestall the declaration of a breach of the contract in an attempt to secure the performance of the defendants thereto, were reasonable and it was proper under the circumstances for plaintiff to set a reasonable time in which defendants were required to complete the contract; that the September 21, 1973, date set by plaintiff for defendants to complete the contract was reasonable; that September 21, 1973, is a proper date upon which to measure plaintiff's damages for breach of the contract by the defendants. The contract price computed as to the weight of the cattle on September 21 ($50,533.59) and the fair market value of the cattle on that date ($34,849.08), plus… READ MORE

Download Full Paper

Write a New Paper for Me

Quoted Instructions for "UCC Contract Law" Assignment:

“

I have provided two Case Studies and an example of how the case study should be written 3 Pages each. Please follow the instructions as written. Please advise if the Case studies can be located and that this request can be filled. Please advise if the are any questions as this request is time sensitive. You will have to look the two listed Case Studies up. Please advise if this will be possible as well.

Best,

The case study should not be more than 4 pages, double spaced and should include the following five (5) sections: Procedural History, Facts, Issue, Answer/Holding, Reasoning and Disposition. Case study #1 Transamerica Oil Corporation v. Lynes, 723 F.2d 758.

The case study should not be more than 4 pages, double spaced and should include the following five (5) sections: Procedural History, Facts, Issue, Answer/Holding, Reasoning and Disposition. Case study #2:Wendling v. Puls & Watson, 610 P.2d 580.

Sample Case Brief

Rush Johnson Farms, Inc. v. Missouri Farmers Association

Case Brief

Issue:

This is a case of first impression in the State of Missouri and the issue is whether or not a farmer may be considered a merchant under the Uniform Commercial Code.

(Note: If Johnson (farmer) is classified as a merchant then he is held to a higher standard and evidence of the oral contract is admissible.)

Facts:

Johnson, farmer, owned two farms and was the grower of soybeans. Johnson routinely sold soybeans to grain elevators similar to the Missouri Farmers Association (MFA), defendant.

On January 2, 1973 Johnson agreed to sell his soybeans to MFA at $4.02 a bushel, with the total number of bushels to be provided by Johnson in dispute. Johnson testified that he agreed to sell between 5,000 and 6,000 bushels while MFA testified that the agreement was for a definite quantity of 6,000 bushels.

MFA mailed a written contract to Johnson indicating that Johnson would sell 6,000 bushels at $4.02 per bushel. Johnson acknowledges receiving the contract and testified that he threw it away. Johnson delivered something less than 6,000 bushels.

Procedural History/Trial Court Holding:

Johnson sued MFA in the Circuit Court of Chariton County for $4,094.60, which Johnson claimed to be the balance due for soybeans sold to MFA. MFA argued that it was entitled to withhold the money because Johnson did not provide 6,000 bushels of soybeans, as required by the contract. Johnson argued that the agreement was oral and therefore inadmissible. MFA responded by stating that Johnson was a merchant under 2-104 and therefore the oral agreement was admissible. The jury found that Johnson came within the meaning of the word merchant and returned a verdict in favor of MFA.

Analysis:

The UCC provision at issue in this case is Â§ 2-104. In Â§ 2-104 a merchant is defined as *****a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed by his employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary who by his occupation holds himself out as having such skill or knowledge.

The official comments to Â§ 2-104 states that the term merchant roots in the concept of a professional in business and that professionalized status may be based upon specialized knowledge as to the goods, specialized knowledge as to business practices or specialized knowledge as to both. Such specialized knowledge may be sufficient to establish merchant status.

Johnson primarily relies on four Illinois cases to argue that he is not a farmer. His reliance on these cases proves fatal however; the Illinois Supreme Court in Sierens v. Clausen held that a farmer may be a merchant, in effect overruling lower court cases in the state.

In arguing that Johnson is indeed a farmer, MFA primarily relies on Nelson v. Union Equity Co-op Exchange. In Nelson the Supreme Court of Texas held that the farmer was a merchant because he dealt with goods of a kind, i.e. wheat. The UCC does not specifically define *****deal***** but the court was satisfied that the common usage of the word, to buy or sell, applies. Because the farmer in Nelson raised and owned his wheat and annually sold that crop himself, he was indeed a merchant dealing in goods of a kind.

The court in Nelson further went on to conclude that an experienced farmer does by his occupation hold himself out as having knowledge or skill of the goods which he is selling. A reasonable person could expect an experienced farmer to know the crop he has raised and held for sale.

Persuaded by the holding and rational in Nelson, the Missouri Court of Appeals determines that Johnson is a merchant because, according to his own testimony, he has been dealing with beans for many, many years and is intimately familiar with the operations of elevators and the farming process.

The court is not persuaded by the argument that a farmer is simply someone that tills the soil. Instead, the court acknowledges that in today*****s society, a farmer is someone that is fully engaged in all areas of marketing the product.

The court does not go so far as to say that all farmers are merchants. Whether or not a particular farmer qualifies as a merchant must be determined based on individual circumstances, taking into account experience and activities of the person involved.

It is important to acknowledge the holdings in Loeb and Company, Inc. v. Schreiner and Decatur Cooperative Association v. Urban. The courts in these cases were persuaded that any farmer is simply a tiller of the soil and is strictly non-professional in the marketing of his crops. These arguments are fully considered by the court but are ultimately unpersuasive.

Disposition:

The Court of Appeals of Missouri affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that Rush Johnson Farms was a merchant under Â§ 2-104. Based on his status as a merchant, Johnson was obligated to object to the agreement that he would provide 6,000 bushels of soybeans, which he did not do. Failure on the part of Johnson to object resulted in a judgment against him.

*****

How to Reference "UCC Contract Law" Case Study in a Bibliography

“UCC Contract Law.” A1-TermPaper.com, 2011, https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ucc-contract-law-transamerica-oil/5092319. Accessed 6 Jul 2024.

UCC Contract Law (2011). Retrieved from https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ucc-contract-law-transamerica-oil/5092319

A1-TermPaper.com. (2011). UCC Contract Law. [online] Available at: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ucc-contract-law-transamerica-oil/5092319 [Accessed 6 Jul, 2024].

”UCC Contract Law” 2011. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ucc-contract-law-transamerica-oil/5092319.

”UCC Contract Law” A1-TermPaper.com, Last modified 2024. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ucc-contract-law-transamerica-oil/5092319.

[1] ”UCC Contract Law”, A1-TermPaper.com, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ucc-contract-law-transamerica-oil/5092319. [Accessed: 6-Jul-2024].

1. UCC Contract Law [Internet]. A1-TermPaper.com. 2011 [cited 6 July 2024]. Available from: https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ucc-contract-law-transamerica-oil/5092319

1. UCC Contract Law. A1-TermPaper.com. https://www.a1-termpaper.com/topics/essay/ucc-contract-law-transamerica-oil/5092319. Published 2011. Accessed July 6, 2024.