Law School Discussion

Anybody handy? UCC question


Re: Anybody handy? UCC question
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2007, 07:40:02 PM »
You will probably get more points if you answer it like it's hard, but it's not hard.  The gist is this: "developer enters into a contract with an architect to design an office building. . . ."  That's all you need.  The K was not for blueprints, or any other good.  The K was for designing an office building.  Just because the money was due on delivery of the blueprints doesn't mean the developer was buying blueprints.

It's probable you'll get more points if you argue all sides - that is the usual way - but I've also had things come up on the exam where the prof was looking for a simple correct answer.  On my Ks II exam, there was one question where he gave me full points based on my first one or two sentences.  I didn't gain or lose anything for the rest of my answer.  He was looking for people to realize how easy it was.

Re: Anybody handy? UCC question
« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2007, 09:58:31 PM »
Agreed that it is not a particularly hard question, but the point to the exercise is clearly to do some legal analysis, not to provide a two sentence answer. 

And I also agree that one of the keys to doing well on exams is prioritizing between the issues that can be answered easily and the answers that require a more in depth analysis, but again, given that it is the beginning of the semester of a first year course, the professor is looking for the students to dig into the question a bit.  I seriously doubt the professor is looking for "people to realize" how easy this question is. 

My advice remains the same:  apply both the predominant element and gravamen tests and see where you get.  LVP's summation is probably right under the predominant element test:  that which is anticipated by all parties is a finished building (a service), not simply a set of blueprints (a good).  Applying the gravamen test though, the situation becomes more muddied.  Applying the rule that you look into what is being sued over (here, presumably the blueprints), the UCC would apply.  (I think one of the leading cases in this area involved a faulty diving board that was a part of a swimming pool.  Though the overall contract was for the construction of a pool, the MD court applied the gravamen test, and due the fact that the breach of warranty suit involved the diving board, itself a moveable good, the UCC did apply).