Introduction
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a law adopted by US legislators, which is concerned with many commercial issues, covering sale of goods, banks and securities interest. However, it does not apply on sales of real estate sale, security interest, employment contracts, marriage settlement and contracts involving labor.
The Crazy Jill
The proposal by a merchant to contractor to sell a good at a given stipulated terms and conditions is an offer. An offer goes hand in hand with acceptance; acceptance terms do not vary with the offer’s terms. If the acceptance terms vary with the offer terms, it will then not regarded as acceptance; rather it will be termed as counter-offer, which leads to rejection of the original offer (Klar & Lewis, 2008). An offer becomes part of a binding contract if the contractor accepts the firm’s offer within a reasonable time. Once an offer has been made, it can be revoked before the acceptance, unless it is under seal. In addition, an offer expires if the dateline for acceptance passes.
The offer made to Jill by Acme Autos was not under seal, and the company did not have legal obligations to keep the car until Jill gave a response of acceptance or rejection of the offer. Also, Jill had not accepted the offer before the car was sold to another person. In that case, there was no breach of contract.
Chocoholics
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), the law in charge of commercial transactions provides remedies to a seller. The code provides that the seller, who discovers that a buyer who received goods; and did not really made payment because the check was bad or the check did not clear, has the right to reclaim the goods. However, this rule is subject to some conditions. In order to reclaim the goods, the seller must make a demand within 10 days after the goods delivery. This section of The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has some limitation; the seller will not be able to reclaim the goods sold to another purchaser by the buyer (Roszkowski, 2001).
New vs. Used
In order to reclaim goods, they must be in a possession of the buyer. If the goods have been sold to a third party, the possession passes to the third party, even if the owner can identify the goods (Macaulay, Braucher, Kidwell & Whitford, 2010). Goods sold to third party by the second buyer cannot be repossessed.
In the case of Riley and Tuna; Riley will not prevail in claiming the television from Tuna because, Tuna was an innocent buyer. In addition, once Tuna bought the television from Silky’s employer, the right of possession was passed to him. Silky will bear the liability and buy a new television for Riley.
For example, In Sitton v Porsche Financial Services GB Ltd (2012), Mr. Palmer purchased a Porsche from the defendant under a hire-purchase agreement. He later sold the car to Mr. Sitton. He failed to honor with the terms and eventually the defendant seized the car and sold it too. By that stage, Mr. Sitton made a claim that car’s title had essential led passed on to him. According to business law, in an instance where a certain car has been sold conditionally, and before there is the vesting of the title in this car in the debtor, the debtor disposes the car off to a private buyer in ‘’good faith” minus notice of the conditional sale or hire purchase, the private buyer retains the car.
Conclusion
The seller of the goods cannot be able to claim goods sold to a third party. Rather, the seller should seek court intervention to compel the original buyer to pay for the goods. The ownership passes immediately to the third party upon payment.
References
Stewart Macaulay, Jean Braucher, John A. Kidwell & William Whitford (2010). Contracts: Law in Action I (3rd Ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN 978-1-42248176-9.
Mark E. Roszkowski (2001). "Symposium on Revised Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code: Section-by-Section Analysis". SMU Law Review
Klar & Lewis. (2008). Tort Law. Toronto: Thomson Carswell.
