{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Itoh v. Jordan - sgree Since there was no indication that...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page: 210 Class Notes Case: Court / Date: Judge: Facts: Issue: Holding: Rule: Itoh & Co. Inc. V. Jordan Int’l Co. 7th Cir. Ct. of App. (1977) J. Sprecher P (Itoh) made an offer that D accepted. On back of D = s (Jordan) acknowledgment form, there was an arbitration clause. P never agreed nor refused the provisions on the back of the form. P later sued for defects and D moved for arbitration. Ct. denied the motion and D. appealed. Ct. cited UCC sec. 2-207(1) stating that Jordan’s form became a counteroffer thus not creating a contract. By performance, the two companies created a contract under UCC sec. 2-207(3), but under this provision, the contract is to be based on terms to which the parties both
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: sgree. Since there was no indication that the parties agreed on the arbitration clause, it can not be enforced. Whether an additional provision to an agreement which is not considered to be a necessary or missing term by the UCC’s “gap-filler” provisions, can be included in the terms of a contract formed though performance. No, an arbitration clause is not considered a “gap-filler” provision by the UCC sec. 2-207 (3). An additional term of an agreement that is not considered a “gap-filler” provision by the UCC has to be agreed upon by both parties to become an effective part of a contract....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}