Wierd contracts final, how to approach it?

[MiamiLaw]

I have the final from last year, and it is 2 questions, one of which is in the format of "Was the case of "bla bla" rightly or wrongly decided?"  That is the entire question. I am assuming that that he wants us to use UCC and Restatements to support our position, but if it is a newer case that was decided after the UCC was created, wouldn't the odds be that it was correctly decided under UCC, if the judge specifically used UCC provisions when making the decision? Just seems very odd. Do you think I would be alright if I treated it like a critique of analysis, and discussed tricky points in the analysis and how it could have gone either way?  I am just really confused here.

[thorc954]

I have the final from last year, and it is 2 questions, one of which is in the format of "Was the case of "bla bla" rightly or wrongly decided?"  That is the entire question. I am assuming that that he wants us to use UCC and Restatements to support our position, but if it is a newer case that was decided after the UCC was created, wouldn't the odds be that it was correctly decided under UCC, if the judge specifically used UCC provisions when making the decision? Just seems very odd. Do you think I would be alright if I treated it like a critique of analysis, and discussed tricky points in the analysis and how it could have gone either way?  I am just really confused here.

welcome to law school that is what they call a policy question.  There is going to be one on most of your exams.  If it is about goods, you want to analyze it under the UCC if it is about services, you want to analyze it under restatements, etc.  however, this isnt like the fact pattern.  here, the analysis is important.  talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the courts decision.  Talk about what part they decided right, and what parts they decided wrong.  Support your answer with a comparison to other cases and with whatever policy you discussed in class.  This is the one time when you really want to come up with an answer after a detailed analysis of the court's decision.  Many cases that were already decided where decided wrong.  That is what the appeals process is for.  This is just asking you to be more critical in your analysis.  It is like you are providing a book report on the case, or actually more like a case note.  What you will do is try to organize something, then try to use the allotted time writing coherently and logically about the case.  Just write for as long as possible and come to a conclusion.

[MiamiLaw]

I have the final from last year, and it is 2 questions, one of which is in the format of "Was the case of "bla bla" rightly or wrongly decided?"  That is the entire question. I am assuming that that he wants us to use UCC and Restatements to support our position, but if it is a newer case that was decided after the UCC was created, wouldn't the odds be that it was correctly decided under UCC, if the judge specifically used UCC provisions when making the decision? Just seems very odd. Do you think I would be alright if I treated it like a critique of analysis, and discussed tricky points in the analysis and how it could have gone either way?  I am just really confused here.

welcome to law school that is what they call a policy question.  There is going to be one on most of your exams.  If it is about goods, you want to analyze it under the UCC if it is about services, you want to analyze it under restatements, etc.  however, this isnt like the fact pattern.  here, the analysis is important.  talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the courts decision.  Talk about what part they decided right, and what parts they decided wrong.  Support your answer with a comparison to other cases and with whatever policy you discussed in class.  This is the one time when you really want to come up with an answer after a detailed analysis of the court's decision.  Many cases that were already decided where decided wrong.  That is what the appeals process is for.  This is just asking you to be more critical in your analysis.  It is like you are providing a book report on the case, or actually more like a case note.  What you will do is try to organize something, then try to use the allotted time writing coherently and logically about the case.  Just write for as long as possible and come to a conclusion.

wow that is very helpful, thanks a lot! 

[MiamiLaw]

wait, if UCC is only about goods and Restatements is only regarding services, how come in class he examines cases under both? Also, our case book (Barnett) has UCC and Restatement provisions after some cases. 

[thorc954]

wait, if UCC is only about goods and Restatements is only regarding services, how come in class he examines cases under both? Also, our case book (Barnett) has UCC and Restatement provisions after some cases. 

My class was taught with the UCC only applying to cases involving goods (moveable objects) and then the restatements/common law for cases involving services and things not constituting goods.  There are some cases where it is not obvious whether the case involves goods or services (for example, princess cruises involves a service contract and the sale of goods).  If you did princess cruises, it provides a few factors for determining if a case is under the UCC or restatements.  If you didnt discuss it, then you will just have to guess, but analyze both either way to be on the safe side.  The UCC provides a definition of goods (I think it is 104 or 204, but I havent taken contracts since last year).  You definitely dont analyze cases under both unless it is questionable what the case involves.  The UCC is only applicable to a limited number of things.  Sometimes case books will teach a subject such as maybe that type of contract where the offer stays open (forgot the name).  Anyway, it will teach something like that, or promissory estoppel.  Then it will give you a case.  The case will deal with only the restatements or UCC approach to it.  However, then they will just throw in both at the end.  You are suppose to sort out which one covers which.  There is also the CISG for the international sale of goods (basically the UCC but for foreign goods).  As far as goods within the united states, you only apply common law (restatements) if there is a a choice of law provision or if there is not an applicable UCC provision. 

I hope this helps.  I would advise reading it a few times, then going to the professor.  I get a little ramblish when I type.  You will never apply the UCC to certain types of contracts though, so if your teacher is teaching it with both, he may just be skipping the step in his head of saying "suppose this was goods not services."  you know what I mean?  anyway, I hope this clears it up.  I think you missed something from your professor and would clarify it with him for sure before going into the exam though.

Good luck.  Exams blow, but whatever.

i didnt figure out that you needed consideration till the night before the contracts exam not even lying.  I hate to right it on a post it.  I had known about it, but I completely forgot about it and left it off my outline till someone reminded me.  It saved my ass.

[StrictlyLiable]

You wanna type the exam for him too, thorc?

[thorc954]

You wanna type the exam for him too, thorc?

hahaha, if it would get me out of studying for con law II sure.

[oscarsonthepond]

That sounds more like a policy question to me than a black letter question.

[natalieag]

Thought I would chime in. 

I don't think the above statement is correct that claims that Restatements refers to services and UCC to goods.  It is true that Article 2 refers only to transfers of goods, but the Restatement is a strongly persuasive authority that can refer to any contract transaction if the court wishes to adopt it.  I think if you check your case book you will find that there are cases that refer to both.  Also, my prof, who specializes in UCC, refers to it even under contracts that are not for the sale of goods, and points out how they would be resolved if it fell under UCC authority.  There is a case that uses UCC as persuasive authority in the opinion for a contract for services as well, so there is more crossover than has been suggested in this thread.  If someone really needs this reference, I will try and dig it out for you.  I'm pretty sure about this, but if someone can point me to an authority that says otherwise, I am prepared to eat humble pie.  Good luck!

[thorc954]

Thought I would chime it. 

I don't think the above statement is correct that claims that Restatements refers to services and UCC to goods.  It is true that Article 2 refers only to transfers of goods, but the Restatement is a strongly persuasive authority that can refer to any contract transaction if the court wishes to adopt it.  I think if you check your case book you will find that there are cases that refer to both.  Also, my prof, who specializes in UCC, refers to it even under contracts that are not for the sale of goods, and points out how they would be resolved if it fell under UCC authority.  There is a case that uses UCC as persuasive authority in the opinion for a contract for services as well, so there is more crossover than has been suggested in this thread.  If someone really needs this reference, I will try and dig it out for you.  I'm pretty sure about this, but if someone can point me to an authority that says otherwise, I am prepared to eat humble pie.  Good luck!

pretty sure you are incorrect with this, but i dont have an authority.  it is always better to follow your professor's lead which is what i suggested.  I have never heard of a case employing the ucc when it did not involve a transaction for the sale of goods.