Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
If there is any variation, even on an unimportant point, between the offer and the terms of its acceptance, there is no contract. In the United States, the Uniform Commercial Code provides for acceptance even when terms of the acceptance differ from terms of the offer. This might occur, for example, when a buyer's "Terms and Conditions" differ ...
The Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") dispenses with the mirror image rule in § 2-207. [3] UCC § 2-207(1) provides that a "definite and seasonable expression of acceptance...operates as" an acceptance, even though it varies the terms of the original offer. Such an expression is typically interpreted as an acceptance when it purports to accept ...
In unilateral contracts, the promisor seeks acceptance by performance from the promisee. In this scenario, the classical contract view was that a contract was not formed until the performance that the promisor seeks was completely performed. This was because the consideration for the contract was the performance of the promisee.
The official 2007 edition of the UCC. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), first published in 1952, is one of a number of uniform acts that have been established as law with the goal of harmonizing the laws of sales and other commercial transactions across the United States through UCC adoption by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Territories of the United States.
A letter is regarded as "posted" only when it is in the possession of the Post Office; this was established in the case of Re London & Northern Bank [1900] 1 Ch 220. A letter of acceptance is not considered "posted" if it is handed to an agent to deliver, such as a courier. This is not the case under the Uniform Commercial Code.
As an offer states the offeror's willingness to be bound to the terms proposed therein, [27] a purported acceptance that varies the terms of an offer is not an acceptance but a counteroffer and hence a rejection of the original offer. The principle of offer and acceptance has been codified under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. [28]
Revelations that three UCLA orthodontics professors solicited unauthorized fees from international students sent shock waves through the university’s highly regarded dentistry school in 2020.
The majority of the Court of Exchequer held that there was no binding contract as the plaintiff's purported letter of acceptance of 28 November did not constitute the same as it was too late for the defendant's offer to sell contained in the letter of 24 November (which had requested "your reply by return of post").