Contracts and Legal Requirements
Contracts between two parties regarding the sale of goods must be supported by specific legal requirements. It is possible to claim that Eugene Wendling and Ted Puls intentionally made a deal to sell and buy 103 heads of cattle. Wendling made a deal, and Ted accepted it to create the agreement. Thus, the two became legally obligated under the sales contract on August 16, 1973.
Uniform Commercial Code
Contracts regarding sales agreements and other connected purchase transactions are covered by the uniform commercial code. It is typically predicated on the notion that the participants to a contract did so voluntarily. The code is founded on parties demonstrating good faith, diligence, and reasonableness toward one another. According to section 1-302 of the uniform commercial code, unless the parties involved in the contract dispute over the terms of the agreement, it is customary for it to be applied to all purchase transactions (Cohen, 2011). Therefore, since both parties did not dispute on the sales terms, the uniform commercial code can be applied to their contract.
Violation of the Uniform Commercial Code
Furthermore, section 1-304 also reiterates on the need for good faith to be demonstrated among traders during the signing and passing of contracts. In this specific case, Puls violated both sections of the uniform commercial code (Knapp, Crystal, & Prince, 2012). This is because he failed to communicate with Wendling so as to express his reservations in proceeding with the venture. Moreover, he did not explain to Wendling about his apparent problem in sheltering the animals in time. Puls even failed to acquire a release from the contract so as Wendling to sell the cattle elsewhere. Therefore, it can be concluded that actions that Puls was engaged in between 23rd to 29th of August, 1973, demonstrated a lack of good faith in the contract.
Service of Notice
To assess whether Puls is obligated by the law to release Wendling from the contract, one has to consider whether Wendling properly served Puls with a notice. This is since section 1-202 of the uniform commercial code states that one is only aware of the salient facts if he has been served with a notice of the salient facts (Cohen, 2011). Subsection (d) further states that the plaintiff should use a reasonable medium to convey the message of the notice. However, as the case dictates, Puls and his financier Watson did not appear at Wendling's lawyer's office on August 29, 1973, as Wendling had requested them.
The case states that both Puls and Watson were unreachable between 23rd and 29th August 1973. However, Wendling notified the two again on 11th September 1973. He even accorded the two a ten day grace period after which he presumed that Puls had breached the contract since, during the entire period, he alone had been feeding the cattle while tying them to a pen. Thereby, it can be concluded that Puls was served with a notice (Knapp, Crystal, & Prince, 2012).
In the light of the above evidence, it is safe to assert that Puls and Watson received the notice served by Wendling on September 11, 1973. The appropriateness of the communication that Wendling used cannot be debated since, as provided by section 1-205 of the uniform commercial code, reasonableness of medium can be assessed through consideration of the notice's purpose (Cohen, 2011). In this case, the purpose was to ask release from the cattle's responsibility and to gain approval to resell them.
References
Cohen, M. (2011). The Basis of Contract. Havard Law Review, 553-600.
Knapp, C., Crystal, N., & Prince, H. (2012). Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials (7th ed.). New York.
