Contractual requirements in the selling of goods
Contractual requirements must be present in a contract for the selling of goods. Ted Plus and Eugene Wendling both possess the ability to enlarge. Ted Puls made a legally binding approval of Wendling's offer after it was made. (Cohen, 2011). The two reached a consensus as of the date of August 16, 1973, and they made an oral agreement to sell 103 heads of livestock.
Uniform Commercial Code and its application
Contracts for sale and other types of deals that are all referred to as purchases are covered by the Uniform Commercial Code, also known as the "Code." Section 1-302 of the Code implies that the Code applies to the transactions as terms of the agreement unless reasonably varied by the parties. Therefore, the agreement to purchase feeder cattle entered on August 16, 1973, would adopt the Code. Section 1-302 of the Code is very clear that the requirements as to good faith, due diligence and reasonableness and care cannot be modified.
The obligation of good faith and its enforcement
In fact, the obligation of good faith in the Code is further imposed by dint of section 1-304 of the Code which provides for the duty of good faith to be exercised during the performance and enforcement of the contract as was stated in Kirke La Shelle Company v. The Paul Armstrong Company & others, 1933. In the instance case, Puls kept off direct contacts with Wendling. His problem of finding a place of keeping the cattle, if any, was not disclosed in time to Wendling. Further, he refused to procure a written release to allow for the resale. All these acts of Puls between August 23, 1973, and August 29, 1973, are actions in bad faith whose only effect is to add to the uncertainty of Puls's intentions to continue with the contract.
Service of Notice
The other determination will be as to whether Ted Puls was properly served with the notice by Philip Wendling. First, Watson and Puls were unable to meet Wendling at his lawyer's offices on August 29, 1973, as requested. Section 1-202 of the Uniform Commercial Code provides that a person has notice of facts if he has received a notice or a notification of the fact. Subsection (d) further provides that a person notifies or gives a notice or notification to another person by taking such steps as may be reasonably required to inform the other person in ordinary.
Notification and delivery of notice
Having regard to the uncertainty of the intentions of Puls who was unreachable between August 23 and August 29, 1973, the only conclusion would be that Wendling notified Watson and Puls on 11th September 1973. Furthermore, he accorded the two a grace period of ten days after which he would presume the breach which was reasonable bearing in mind that Wendling had been feeding the cattle tied in a pen since the date of the agreement.
The second issue is whether the notification was received by Watson and Ted Puls. Section 1-202 subsection (e) provides that a person receives a notice or notification when it either it comes to that person's attention, or it is duly delivered in a form reasonable under the circumstances at the place of business through which the contract was made or at another location held out by that person as the place for receipt of such communications.
Proper notification and reasonableness
First, it is clear that Puls held out Wendling to be associated with him and therefore any communication to Watson would be reasonably notified on Puls. It is also clear that the notice given by Wendling on September 11, 1973, was served on both Watson and Puls. Thus, there was proper notification. Again, reading reasonableness provision of Section 1-205 of the Code shows that the form of notification was reasonable bearing in mind the purpose, nature of the action that was to release Wendling from the responsibility and to allow him to sell the cattle.
Conclusion
Arguably, the obligation of good faith imposed by section 1-304 of the Code was grossly breached by Puls. The notice to obtain a release was effectively sent to Watson, the financier of Puls. As a result of the breach, Wendling has suffered a quantifiable loss being the difference between the original sale price under the contract with Puls that is $ 50, 5333.50 and the two slots sales at $39, 978.49 that is $ 14,755.02. He may rely on Section 1-305 of the Code which provides that the aggrieved party may be put in a good position as if the other party had performed as was laid down in Snepp v. the United States, 444 (U.S). To this extent, Wendling may claim against Puls for the quantifiable damage for loss of price (Knapp, Crystal, & Prince, 2012, p. 88).
References
Cohen, M. (2011). The Basis of Contract. Harvard Law Review, 46(21), 553-600.
Knapp, C., Crystal, N., & Prince, H. (2012). Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials (7th Edition ed.). New York: Aspen.
