Article 2 of UCC governs sale of goods

Article 2 of UCC governs sale of goods - Common law governs...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Common law governs K law Article 2 of UCC governs sale of goods I Three goals of contract damages – A) To compensate the aggrieved party rather than to punish the breaching party. Not punitive damages. B) To give substitutional relief ( money damages ) rather than specific relief (Specific performance) C) Expectation damages. II Damages A) Remedies a. Punitive Damages – not awarded in contract law. Some cases will have tort elements in them (fraud, bad faith breach). One of the few rules in contract law is that punitive damages are not given for breach of contract. b. Compensatory – compensate rather than punish. 1. Specific Performance (when monetary relief is inadequate) i. item contracted for is unique so difficulty in covering ii. extensive supervision by ct is unnecessary iii. K is clear enough to write specific decree of performance iv. Antagonistic parties are not forced to work together 2. Money Damages i. Expectation – Put injured party ahead in time to where they expected to be had the K been performed a. Example- Sullivan v. O’Connor, botched operation; (difference b/w desired nose and nose after operation) b. Buyer breach –Seller sells goods to an alternative buyer. Expectation damages equal the amount of money the buyer expected to pay had the original buyer honored the contract. (1) Cover – Buyer can buy replacements in good faith, reasonable time frame, and reasonable purchase and is repaid difference in K price plus incidentals. If no cover, use market price formula.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
(2) Market Price Formula (Laredo Hides) – (UCC §2-713 (1)) “the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages…” a. Incidental Damages [2-715(1)]- expenses along the way b. Consequential Damages [2-715(2)] – remote damages, chain reaction damages. P can only collect if the D had reason to foresee the damages as a possible result of the breach ( forseeability ). c. Seller’s Breach - (Laredo Hides v H & H Meat Product, Texas 1974) A buyer who covers has to use the cover formula, but a seller who resells can choose between the market price or the resale price. ii. Reliance - Take the victim back in time, as if the contract had never been made. The expenditures (out of pocket, incidental, consequential, and damages for worsening of condition) of the victim are paid back. a. Example- Sullivan v. O’Connor. (Difference b/w operated on nose and original nose) iii. Restitution – Places parties as if K had never been made by returning benefit conferred on defendant . a. 4 Requirements: 1. Benefit is received by D 2. Benefit was at P’s expense 3 . It would be unjust to allow D to retain benefit w/out retuning it 4. Benefit was not intended as gift (P expected consideration) b. Example- Sullivan getting her medical expenses back from the Dr. III
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/15/2008 for the course LAW 1090 taught by Professor Gegan during the Fall '03 term at St. Johns Duplicate.

Page1 / 22

Article 2 of UCC governs sale of goods - Common law governs...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online