How does the UCC modify the mirror image rule? Part 2

How does the UCC modify the mirror image rule? This video discusses how the UCC modifies the common law mirror image rule, focusing on the "Knockout Rule" where an acceptance contains a term that contradicts a term in the offer.
To discuss further, feel free to send me an email and to comment below. Also, please visit my website:
website: www.uslawessentials.com
blog: www.uslawessentials.com/blog
Twitter: / uslawessentials
United States Law: An Introduction for International Students is available at:
www.amazon.com/author/daniele...

[@vivianle1980]

Thank you so much for very clear explanation!

[@EllieSJWoo]

Clear explanations!

[@journalistjude.ginuwinesqueen]

Great analogy!!!

[@miryamishot]

How did the courts determine it was four years instead of three? Seems like the court sided with the offer as opposed to the offeree

[@ProfaneDreads-]

I understood.Thanks.

[@USLawEssentials]

I have more information here: uslawessentials.com/ucc-2-207-understand-battle-forms-part-2/

[@davidsdaughter6660]

How does the ucc code relate to each other with defining terms. If one state defines a word in their state concerning the same object does the other state by silence aquieses too the term defined?

[@olhasum4721]

What if one party offers to sell a minimum amount of goods that's for example 10 tires for $500. The offeree issues acceptance but only for 7 tires, not specifying the price. Would there be a contract under UCC?

[@Sim-oz3mi]

Olha Sum i would say no, because under the UCC this is a contradiction in materialistic terms so therefore the contract is voidable

[@annoyedlawstudent8782]

what if one party is NOT a merchant?

[@USLawEssentials]

For non-merchants different or additional terms are treated as proposals in a sale of goods contract. Remember though, if the acceptance is not sufficiently definite there would be no contract.