DOCSLIB.ORG

Restoring Peace in the Battle of the Forms: a Framework for Making Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207 Work, 69 N.C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Restoring Peace in the Battle of the Forms: a Framework for Making Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207 Work, 69 N.C NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 69 | Number 3 Article 3 3-1-1991 Restoring Peace in the Battle of the orF ms: A Framework for Making Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207 Work Caroline N. Brown Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Caroline N. Brown, Restoring Peace in the Battle of the Forms: A Framework for Making Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207 Work, 69 N.C. L. Rev. 893 (1991). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol69/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RESTORING PEACE IN THE BATTLE OF THE FORMS: A FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE SECTION 2-207 WORK CAROLINE N. BROWN* The promulgation of Uniform Commercial Code section 2-207 led to a host of difficulties in interpretationand application. In this Article, ProfessorBrown argues that many of the problems associatedwith sec- tion 2-207 are avoided when one interpretsthe statute in light of its pre- Code foundation. Relying upon the commercial context and analogy to section 2-206(1)(b), she demonstrates that section 2-207 represents the latitude in acceptance implicitly extended by the offeror in the special context ofform contracts. She concludes that most additionalterms in the offeree's form automatically become part of the contract, limiting the "materialalteration" exclusion of subsection (2)(b) to terms which would be substantially surprising to the offeror. I. INTRODUCTION Section 2-2071 of the Uniform Commercial Code has bedeviled the legal community ever since its promulgation.2 Indeed, interpretations and applica- * Professor of Law, University of North Carolina. B.A., 1969, University of California, Berkeley; M.A., 1972, University of Rochester; J.D., 1976, University of Miami. Research for the Article was supported in part by the North Carolina Law Center. The author has published previ- ous articles under the name of "Caroline N. Bruckel." 1. U.C.C. § 2-207 provides: (1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms. (2) The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract. Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless: (a) the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) they materially alter it; or (c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received. (3) Conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract is sufficient to establish a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise estab- lish a contract. In such case the terms of the particular contract consist of those terms on which the writings of the parties agree, together with any supplementary terms incoipo- rated under any other provisions of this Act. U.C.C. § 2-207 (1990). 2. See, e.g., Roto-Lith, Ltd. v. F.P. Bartlett & Co., 297 F.2d 497, 500 (1st Cir. 1962) ("not too happily drafted"); Reaction Molding Tech., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 585 F. Supp. 1097, 1104 (E.D. Pa. 1984) ("a defiant, lurking demon patiently waiting to condemn its interpreters to the depths of despair"), modified, 588 F. Supp. 1280 (E.D. Pa. 1984); Southwest Eng'g Co. v. Martin Tractor Co., 205 Kan. 684, 694, 473 P.2d 18, 25 (1970) ("murky bit of prose"); R. DUESENIIERG & L. KING, SALES AND BULK TRANSFERS, 3 BENDER'S U.C.C. SERVICE, §§ 3.01-3.08 (1986); Letter from NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 69 tions of this statute vary so widely that the "battle of the forms" may appear a more insoluble problem now than when section 2-207 first was enacted.3 Cases and commentary have succeeded in tapping every possibility for confusion in- herent in the statutory language or invited by the ambiguities of its practical context. 4 Although "battle of the forms" issues often are litigated and have been the subject of numerous articles, this attention has generated more controversy and confusion than clarity. 5 Instead of a sound, practical solution to a commer- cial problem, the section has become an enigma. The purpose of this Article, then, is to explore the appropriate function of section 2-207 in the context of its underlying commercial necessities6 and in Grant Gilmore to Robert Summers, in R. SUMMERS & J. WHITE, COMMERCIAL & CONSUMER LAW 54 (3d ed. 1981) (describing § 2-207 as "a miserable, bungled, patched-up job") [hereinafter Gilmore Letter]; J. WHITE & R. SUMMERS, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE §§ 1-3, at 28-29 (3d ed. 1988); Baird & Weisberg, Rules, Standards,and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of§ 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217, 1220-21 (1982); Barron & Dunfee, Two Decades of 2-207. Review, Reflection and Revision, 24 CLEV. ST. L. REv. 171, 213 (1975); Duesenberg, Contract Creation: The Continuing Struggle with Additional and Different Terms under Uniform Commerical Code Section 2-207, 34 Bus. LAW. 1477, 1477 (1979); Friedman & Macaulay, ContractLaw and Contract Teaching: Past, Present, and Future, 1967 Wis. L. REv. 804, 818; Hawkland, Major Changes under the Uniform Commercial Code in the Formation and Terms of Sales Contracts, 10 PRAC. LAW., May 1964, at 73, 79-82; Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337, 337 (1986) [hereinafter Murray, A Proposed Revision]; Murray, The Chaos of the "Battle of the Forms" Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REv. 1307, 1308 (1986) [hereinafter Murray, Chaos of the "Battle of the Forms"]; Murray, The Article 2 Prism: The Underlying Philosophy of Article 2 of the Uniform Commerical Code, 21 WASHBURN L.J. 1, 8 (1981) [hereinafter Murray, The Article 2 Prism]; Murray, Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code: Another Word About Incipient Unconscionability, 39 U. Prrr. L. Rnv. 597, 599 (1978) [hereinafter Murray, Incipient Unconsclona. bility]; Murray, The Realism of Behaviorism Under the Uniform Commercial Code, 51 OR. L. REV. 269, 270 (1972) [hereinafter Murray, The Realism of Behaviorism]; Murray, Intention Over Terms: An Exploration of U.C C 2-207 and New Section 60, Restatement of Contracts, 37 FORDHAM L. REV. 317, 329 (1969) [hereinafter Murray, Intention Over Terms]; Shanker, Contract by Disagree- mentl? (Reflections of UCC 2-207), 81 CoM. L.L 453, 453 (1976); Taylor, U.CC Section 2-207" An Integration of Legal Abstractions and TransactionalReality, 46 U. CIN. L. REV. 419, 421 (1977); Thatcher, Battle of the Forms: Solution by Revision of Section 2-207, 16 U.C.C. L. 237, 240-41 (1984); Travalio, Clearing the Air After The Battle: Reconciling Fairnessand Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.CC.Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. 327, 327-28 (1983); Note, Contracts: Sales of Goods. Acceptance of Offer: Additional or Different Terms: Section 2-207, Uniform Commercial Code: Section 84-a, New York PersonalProperty Law (New), 46 CORNELL L. REv. 308, 316 (1961) ("Section 2-207 appears to complicate ... judicial interpretation of the chronology of offer and acceptance. ... [C]ourts ... will need more than a scorecard to distinguish the players."). For a comparable study of the "battle of the forms," see Von Mehren, "The Battle of the Forms". A Comparative View, 38 AM. J. COMP. L. 265 (1990). 3. See Murray, A Proposed Revision, supra note 2, at 344; Murray, Chaosof the "Battle of the Forms," supra note 2, at 1311-30; Thatcher, supra note 2, at 239-40. 4. See Baird & Weisberg, supra note 2, at 1249-50 (terms supplied under § 2-207(3) not suita- ble for some transactions); Barron & Dunfee, supra note 2, at 179; Murray, Chaos of the "Battle of the Forms," supra note 2, at 1323-24, 1349-51. 5. See, eg., Murray, Chaos of the "Battle of the Forms," supra note 2, at 1308 ("this chaos threatens the institution of contract in our society"). 6. An informal information-gathering effort by the author revealed that actual commercial practice involving the use of forms is quite disparate and difficult to generalize about, except for a few fundamental observations. Some forms lack any fine print at all; some have copious amounts. Almost any form from a purchase order to an acknowledgment to an invoice can be used as the original or sole communication. More often, telephone or personal conferences precede the forms; in such cases, actual agreement may be reached, or the conversations may serve merely as a prelimi- nary stage in negotiation before forms are sent. Because of the great disparity in commercial practice, this Article makes no effort to address the function of § 2-207 in all cases. Rather, the Article is designed to set the stage for the statute's 1991] ACCEPTANCE UNDER U.C.C. § 2-207 light of the larger body of law in which it is set. When the statute is understood in its context, both commercially and within its broader framework of common- law contract law and Uniform Commercial Code policy, the most difficult issues posed by section 2-207 can be resolved and the results made both fairly predict- able and predictably fair. To facilitate its proper application, the Article sug- gests a general methodology for applying the statute in most cases.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Economic Implications of the Doctrine of Impossibility, 26 Hastings L.J
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 26 | Issue 5 Article 5 1-1975 The conomicE Implications of the Doctrine of Impossibility Stephen S. Ashley Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen S. Ashley, The Economic Implications of the Doctrine of Impossibility, 26 Hastings L.J. 1251 (1975). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol26/iss5/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE OF IMPOSSIBILITY If one accepts as a norm Cardozo's maxim that "[t]he final cause of law is the welfare of society,"' economic theory may provide a useful basis for evaluating the social consequences of legal doctrines. This note will demonstrate the usefulness of applying an economic analysis to the doctrine of impossibility of contract performance, the legal prin- ciple applied to contract disputes which arise when an unforeseen catas- trophe prevents performance of a contract whose terms do not allocate the risk of that catastrophe. The traditional legal analysis, by limiting its view to the allocation of losses which have already occurred and by ignoring the problem of assigning the risk of future losses, has pro- duced inconsistent and arbitrary risk assignments, to society's detri- ment. The proposals of other legal writers would have the same effect. This note will demonstrate through an economic analysis that the law should allocate the risk of disruption unequivocally to the party better able to insure against the risk, subject to reassignment by the parties in their contract.
    [Show full text]
  • Contracts - Impossibility Existing at the Time of the Formation of the Contract No Defense
    DePaul Law Review Volume 7 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1957 Article 12 Contracts - Impossibility Existing at the Time of the Formation of the Contract No Defense DePaul College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation DePaul College of Law, Contracts - Impossibility Existing at the Time of the Formation of the Contract No Defense, 7 DePaul L. Rev. 114 (1957) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol7/iss1/12 This Case Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I "9t DE PAUL LAW REVIEW with other issues, i.e., the statute controlling licensing of the exhibiting of motion pictures, 17 and a criminal statute.' 8 In any event, the court held that "nudity in itself and without lewdness or dirtiness is not obscenity in law or in common sense"' 9 and appears not to adhere to the possible ex- tension of obscenity to that which provokes lustful or lascivious thoughts, as it quotes the following from the decision rendered in People v. Muller: If the test of obscenity or indecency in a picture or statue is its capability of suggesting impure thoughts, then indeed all such representations might be con- sidered as indecent or obscene. 20 That the decisions of the Supreme Court in Roth and Alberts have crystallized some of the concepts and removed many of the ambiguities existing in the treatment of obscene publications is evident.
    [Show full text]
  • Impediment, Hardship, and the Excuse Doctrines
    Pace International Law Review Volume 27 Issue 1 Commercial Edition Article 5 Spring 2015 April 2015 Contractual Excuse Under the CISG: Impediment, Hardship, and the Excuse Doctrines Larry A. DiMatteo Warrington College of Business Administration Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Contracts Commons, International Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Larry A. DiMatteo, Contractual Excuse Under the CISG: Impediment, Hardship, and the Excuse Doctrines, 27 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 258 (2015) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pilr/vol27/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace International Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 5. PROFESSOR LARRY DIMATTEO.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/29/15 5:20 PM CONTRACTUAL EXCUSE UNDER THE CISG: IMPEDIMENT, HARDSHIP, AND THE EXCUSE DOCTRINES Larry A. DiMatteo * I. Introduction II. Hardship in German and American Law a. German Notion of Changed Circumstances b. Doctrine of Impracticability in American Law III. EXCUSE AND HARDSHIP UNDER PICC AND PECL a. PICC b. PECL IV. APPLICATION OF EXCUSE AND HARDSHIP UNDER CISG ARTICLE 79: IMPOSSIBILITY AND HARDSHIP a. CISG Article 79 b. Is Impossibility or Act of God Always an Im- pediment under Article 79? c. Hardship as Excuse: Scope of Article 79 d. Argument for Hardship as Article 79 Excuse V. CISG JURISPRUDENCE: IMPOSSIBILITY AND FORESEEABILITY a.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of the Impossibility Defense Gerhard Wagner Georg-August University of Goettingen
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 27 Article 4 Issue 1 Fall 1995 1995 In Defense of the Impossibility Defense Gerhard Wagner Georg-August University of Goettingen Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Contracts Commons Recommended Citation Gerhard Wagner, In Defense of the Impossibility Defense, 27 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 55 (1995). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol27/iss1/4 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Essay In Defense of the Impossibility Defense GerhardWagner* I. INTRODUCTION Generally, the common law follows the rule of pacta sunt servanda' under which contractual obligations are absolutely binding on the parties. 2 The impossibility defense is an exception to this general rule.3 Under the impossibility defense, a promisor may default with- out incurring liability for the promisee's expectation damages.4 * Akademischer Rat (Junior Lecturer) at Georg-August University of Goettingen, Germany; J.D., 1989, University of Goettingen; L.L.M., 1995, University of Chicago. The author is deeply indebted to Richard Craswell of the University of Chicago Law School for many helpful comments on an earlier draft of this Essay. 1. "Pacta sunt servanda" means "agreements (and stipulations) of the parties (to a contract) must be observed." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1109 (6th ed. 1990). 2. For an erudite discussion of pacta sunt servanda, see generally Richard Hyland, Pacta Sunt Servanda: A Meditation, 34 VA.
    [Show full text]
  • Contract Basics for Litigators: Illinois by Diane Cafferata and Allison Huebert, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, with Practical Law Commercial Litigation
    STATE Q&A Contract Basics for Litigators: Illinois by Diane Cafferata and Allison Huebert, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, with Practical Law Commercial Litigation Status: Law stated as of 01 Jun 2020 | Jurisdiction: Illinois, United States This document is published by Practical Law and can be found at: us.practicallaw.tr.com/w-022-7463 Request a free trial and demonstration at: us.practicallaw.tr.com/about/freetrial A Q&A guide to state law on contract principles and breach of contract issues under Illinois common law. This guide addresses contract formation, types of contracts, general contract construction rules, how to alter and terminate contracts, and how courts interpret and enforce dispute resolution clauses. This guide also addresses the basics of a breach of contract action, including the elements of the claim, the statute of limitations, common defenses, and the types of remedies available to the non-breaching party. Contract Formation to enter into a bargain, made in a manner that justifies another party’s understanding that its assent to that 1. What are the elements of a valid contract bargain is invited and will conclude it” (First 38, LLC v. NM Project Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 142680-U, ¶ 51 (unpublished in your jurisdiction? order under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1113 (8th ed.2004) and Restatement (Second) of In Illinois, the elements necessary for a valid contract are: Contracts § 24 (1981))). • An offer. • An acceptance. Acceptance • Consideration. Under Illinois law, an acceptance occurs if the party assented to the essential terms contained in the • Ascertainable Material terms.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of New Hampshire
    THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0536, Bellevue Properties, Inc. v. Settlers’ Tennis, Inc. & a., the court on July 26, 2016, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, the court concludes that a formal written opinion is unnecessary in this case. The plaintiff, Bellevue Properties, Inc. (Bellevue), appeals, and defendant New Hampshire Department of Transportation (the State) and defendants, Settlers’ Tennis, Inc., Settlers’ R1, Inc., and 13 Green Street Properties, LLC (collectively referred to in this order as Settlers), cross-appeal, orders of the Superior Court (Smukler, J.) related to Bellevue’s right to access and use a swimming pool and tennis courts located on property owned by Settlers. We affirm. I. Background The parties own property in “Settlers’ Green,” a mixed-use development that includes retail space, apartments that were once condominiums, the North Conway Grand Hotel, and the “Tennis Green Lot,” on which there is an outdoor swimming pool and six tennis courts (four concrete and two clay). For ease of reference we refer to the swimming pool and tennis courts as “the Tennis Green Lot amenities.” The Tennis Green Lot, which Settlers owns, is across the street from the “Hotel Property,” which Bellevue has owned since 1999. The Hotel Property comprises two lots, one on which the hotel is located and the other on which hotel parking is located. According to Bellevue, and not apparently disputed by Settlers or the State, the hotel currently has 150 rooms and 50 privately-owned suites. There are three swimming pools on the Hotel Property: an indoor pool and two outdoor pools (the Hotel Property amenities).
    [Show full text]
  • Tax-Deductible Conservation Easements and the Essential Perpetuity Requirements Nancy Mclaughlin S.J
    SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah Utah Law Digital Commons Utah Law Faculty Scholarship Utah Law Scholarship Summer 2017 Tax-Deductible Conservation Easements and the Essential Perpetuity Requirements Nancy McLaughlin S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship Part of the Property Law and Real Estate Commons, Taxation-Federal Estate and Gift ommonC s, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Tax-Deductible Conservation Easements and the Essential Perpetuity Requirements (July 25, 2017). Virginia Tax Review, Forthcoming This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Utah Law Scholarship at Utah Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Utah Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TAX-DEDUCTIBLE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND THE ESSENTIAL PERPETUITY REQUIREMENTS Nancy A. McLaughlin* Property owners who make charitable gifts of perpetual conservation easements are eligible to claim federal charitable income tax deductions. Through this tax-incentive program the public is investing billions of dollars in easements encumbering millions of acres nationwide. In response to reports of abuse in the early 2000s, the Internal Revenue Service (Service) began auditing and litigating questionable easement donation transactions, and the resulting case law reveals significant failures to comply with the deduction’s requirements. Recently, the Service has come under fire for enforcing the deduction’s “perpetuity” requirements, which are intended to ensure that the easements will protect the subject properties’s conservation values in perpetuity and that the public’s investment in the easements will not be lost.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Misleading Statement Or Omission Under Rule 10B-5?
    Fordham Law Review Volume 42 Issue 2 Article 2 1973 What Is a Misleading Statement or Omission Under Rule 10b-5? Arnold S. Jacobs Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Arnold S. Jacobs, What Is a Misleading Statement or Omission Under Rule 10b-5? , 42 Fordham L. Rev. 243 (1973). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol42/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. What Is a Misleading Statement or Omission Under Rule 10b-5? Cover Page Footnote The author gratefully acknowledges the invaluable substantive suggestions of Ed Kaufmann and Fredric J. Klink, members of the New York Bar, the editorial aid of Ellen K. Jacobs and Ann S. Kheel, and the stenographic help of Mary Ann Assicurato. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol42/iss2/2 WHAT IS A MISLEADING STATEMENT OR OMISSION UNDER RULE 10b-5? ARNOLD S. JACOBS* TAs a or CoNTENTs I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................. 243 II. GE N an RuLas ............................................................ 246 i. SmcAL APPLICATioNS ...................................................... 260 A. Proxy Statements, Registration Statements, and Other Long Documents ...... 260 B. Financial Statements .................................................... 264 C. Intention and Promises ................................................. 267 D . M otive ................................................................ 274 E. Concealment, Disclosure, and Fairness .................................... 275 F.
    [Show full text]
  • Misrepresentation: the Restatement’S Second Mistake
    HOFFER.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 1/31/2014 2:04 PM MISREPRESENTATION: THE RESTATEMENT’S SECOND MISTAKE Stephanie R. Hoffer* The contract defenses of mistake and misrepresentation can be used to unravel deals as big as a corporate merger and as small as the sale of a used car. These two defenses, while conceptually distinct in theory, contain a significant amount of overlap in practice, causing courts to conflate the two legal standards. A misrepresentation of one party, when believed, results in a mistaken belief of the other, and both defenses address fundamental flaws in bargaining that throw the contracting parties’ consent into question. The coextensiveness of the defenses suggests that, absent an overriding normative justification, the legal test and remedy should be the same for each. Such a norma- tive justification exists only in the case of fraudulent misrepresentation which, unlike mistake or nonfraudulent misrepresentation, involves the intentional infliction of a dignitary harm. In such cases, punish- ment and deterrence are appropriate normative goals but neither are addressed by currently prevailing common law. Providing a single test for cases of misrepresentation and mistake with recourse to puni- tive damages in cases of fraud would harmonize the defenses with their normative underpinnings and eliminate inefficient redundancies in the common law. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 117 II. MISTAKE ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • When a Commercial Contract Doesn't Have a Force Majeure Clause
    April 24, 2020 WHEN A COMMERCIAL CONTRACT DOESN’T HAVE A FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE: COMMON LAW DEFENSES TO CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT To Our Clients and Friends: The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, and stringent government orders regulating the movement and gathering of people issued in response, continues to raise concerns about parties’ abilities to comply with contractual terms across a variety of industries. As discussed previously here, force majeure clauses may address parties’ obligations under such circumstances. Even without force majeure clauses, depending on the circumstances parties may seek to invalidate contracts or delay performance under the common law based on COVID-19. To assist in considering such issues, we have prepared the following overview. As the analysis of the applicability of any of the doctrines below is fact-specific and fact- intensive, this overview is intended only as a starting point. We encourage you to reach out to your Gibson Dunn contact to discuss specific questions or issues that may arise. Impossibility of Performance The doctrine of impossibility is available where performance of a contract is rendered objectively impossible.[1] In assessing whether impossibility of performance applies to your situation and your contract, it is useful first to determine whether the jurisdiction applicable to your contract or dispute has codified the doctrine. As in California, the statutory language might provide guidance to or place limitations on its applicability.[2] A party seeking to invoke the impossibility doctrine under common law must show that the impossibility was produced by an unanticipated event and the event could not have been foreseen or guarded against in the contract.[3] Courts have held that impossibility of performance during times of emergency or disaster has generally excused performance on the basis of governing law, governmental regulations, or the disruption of transportation or communication networks.
    [Show full text]
  • Contractual Impossibility and Frustration of Purpose in the Face of the COVID- 19 Epidemic by Lisa Bentley
    Contractual Impossibility and Frustration of Purpose in the Face of the COVID- 19 Epidemic By Lisa Bentley The outbreak of the global epidemic now known as COVID-19, which has come to be all too familiar to us in the past few weeks, is a story that has only just begun. As many of us watch this current health and economic calamity unfold, it is simply not clear at this point what the myriad of long-term effects of the virus will be on our world. As commercial litigators, however, one thing that we can realistically expect is that the performance of thousands of commercial contracts will be jeopardized. From cross-border contracts for the purchase and sale of goods, to lease agreements for retail space, to contracts for international mergers and acquisitions, to agreements for the use of event space, businesses are likely to be faced with the fact that performance if their commercial contracts is no longer possible, is extremely difficult, or just no longer makes any sense. Impossibility, Impracticality and Frustration of Purpose. When faced with such situations, businesses might look to the doctrines of contractual impossibility, or impracticality, or the related doctrine of frustration of purpose. While limited in their applicability, these doctrines are defenses that a contracting party may invoke to their performance obligations under a contract. The defense of impossibility, or impracticality, may be available when there is an unanticipated event that could not have been foreseen or guarded against in a contract.[1] Frustration of purpose
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Southern District of Florida
    Case 9:19-cv-80278-BER Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/26/19 13:44:15 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case Number: 19-CV-80278-REINHART BRETT SOKOLOW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DOMINIQUE DAMICO, et al., Defendants. _______________________________________/ ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 80) AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE (DE 93) On September 19, 2019, the parties consented to have the undersigned preside over the final disposition of this lawsuit. DE 65. Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 80) and Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SOF) (DE 79, 81, 86), Plaintiffs’ opposition papers (DE 90) accompanied by their Responsive Statement of Material Facts (RSOF) (DE 89, 91), and Defendants’ reply (DE 97). Also before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike two affidavits of Rick Fleiderman submitted by Defendants in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. DE 93. For the reasons explained below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 80) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Affidavits of Rick Fleiderman (DE 93) is GRANTED. BACKGROUND This case centers around a competitive show horse named Rockette. It is undisputed that in October 2018, the parties entered into a written Lease Agreement by which Defendants leased Case 9:19-cv-80278-BER Document 121 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/26/19 13:44:15 Page 2 of 21 Rockette to Plaintiffs for a period of 13 months for their daughter to use in show jumping competitions. Plaintiffs made a partial payment on the lease.
    [Show full text]