1. A. According to the UCC 2-205, 2A-205, a Firm Offer arises when a merchant-offer gives assurances in a signed writing that the offer will remain open. The merchant’s firm offer is irrevocable without the necessity of consideration for the stated period or, if no definite period is stated, a reasonable period. B. There is a contract between the two parties. In order to qualify as a firm offer, the UCC states the offer must be: (1) written (2) signed by the offeror. Nelbell motors both writes the letter and also signs it before sending it to Oskern. Therefor, there is a contract between the parties. C. Nelbell Motors has breached the contract. This is due to the fact that Nelbell Motors signed the letter and that created a firm offer. Due to the fact that it is a firm offer, the UCC claims “the merchants offer is irrevocable”. A period was stated in the contract by Nelbell Motors; therefor, Nelbell was required to wait until after July 1st to sell the car to a party other than Oskern.
2. A. According to the UCC 2-401, once goods exist and are identified, the provision apply to the passage of title. In nearly all subscriptions of UCC 2-401, the words “unless otherwise explicitly agreed” appear, meaning that any explicit understanding …show more content…
In this particular situation the two parties never agreed to who bears the risk of loss. Title never passed due to the fact that there was lack of identification in the contract. The UCC states before title and risk of loss passes from the seller to the buyer, (1) the goods must be in existence (2) the goods must be identified to the contract. The widgets were in existence; however, when the contract was initially formed it did not identify the widgets. This could be due to the fact that the widgets may not have been separated from lot A. The contract was formed when Paulson promised prompt shipping; however, title could not pass the moment the contract was formed due to lack of