Ask Question
31 March, 06:56

Strike offers to sell Bailey one thousand shirts for a stated price. The offer declares that shipment will be made by Dependable Truck Line. Bailey replies, "I accept your offer for one thousand shirts at the price quoted. Delivery to be by Yellow express Truck Line." Both Strike and Bailey are merchants. Three weeks later, Strike ships the shirts by Dependable Truck Line, and Bailey refuses to accept delivery. Strike sues for breach of contract. Bailey claims that there never was a contract because his reply, which included a modification of carriers, did not constitute an acceptance. Bailey further claims that even if there had been a contract, Strike would have been in breach because Strike shipped the shirts by Dependable, contrary to the contracts terms. Discuss fully Bailey's claims.

Answers (1)
  1. 31 March, 07:53
    We can assume that both Strike and Bailey are American companies and that they operate in that US under the UCC rules. Under UCC rules they are both considered merchants since they trade with the goods related to the contract. Strike's offer was very precise and Bailey's acceptance was made in a reasonable manner which can be considered a valid acceptance.

    The only difference exists with the shipping company, which the UCC rules consider a conflicting term and Strike should have either objected or ratified it before sending the goods. Since Strike didn't object Bailey's terms, then by using a different truck company it is breaching the contract.
Know the Answer?