UCC CASE QUESTIONS 4
Thecourt would not likely decide that the transaction between Holcomband TCG was covered by the Uniform Commercial Code. This is becausethe UCC addresses the problems that arise from interstate businessdue to the non-deliverable while the goods and services have beendelivered (US, Legal, 2014).The UCC focuses on guiding business cases that involve a buyerrepudiating a contract agreement where the seller has delivered.Therefore, the case between Holcomb and TCG does cannot cover by theUCC.
Therefore,the court would not likely consider Holcomb as a merchant under theUCC. This is because the UCC handles cases of sales, leases, bankdeposits, and letters of credit, bulk sales and transfers andnegotiable instrument (US, Legal, 2014).In the case for Holcomb and TCG, the goods or the service has notbeen delivered, and therefore cannot be termed as a sale. Inaddition, the project has exceeded the time that it was needed for,and agreed at. The UCC does not handle the contract repudiation whenthe expected goods or services have not been delivered.
Underthe UCC, the parties had a valid contract. This is because thecontract had an offer, an acceptance and a consideration, as well asa specific delivery time (Tepper, 2011).However, the contract lacked agreement on the terms that guided thedelivery time. Therefore, their contract did not address the failureto honor such deliverables and the recommended repercussions.
Theoral agreement by Holcomb and TCG would be enforceable under the UCC.This is because the new agreement is an extension of and a contractalready put in writing (Tepper, 2011).In addition, the oral agreement would be valid because it was arrivedat to resolve a problem arising from the previous contractual terms.
Tepper,P. (2011). TheLaw of Contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code.Stamford: Cengage Learning
US,Legal, 2014. UniformCommercialCode.RetrievedFrom, <http://uniformcommercialcode.uslegal.com> April 14, 2015