Running Head: CONTRACTUAL LAW

Common Law and Uniform Commercial Code Contracts

[Name of Writer]

[Name of Institute]

[Date]
 Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Common Law Contracts..................................................................................................................3
Either Bilateral or Unilateral...........................................................................................................5
Defenses for Breach of Contract......................................................................................................6
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
Reference.........................................................................................................................................8
 Common Law and Uniform Commercial Code Contracts

Introduction

In United States, there are two main sources of law that govern our contracts: Common

Law and Common Commercial Law. Article 2 of the “Unified Commercial Law (UCC)”

monitors contracts between the dealer and the sale of the goods. Basically, the UCC contains two

contractual principles. One set contains rules for all and the other contains rules for service

providers. In this area we will examine the UCC for traders. Basically, we will examine how the

needs of UCC contrast with the general laws of contract design. The components of the

conclusion of public contracts include delivery, acceptance and consideration. Presentation and

acceptance together the structure of the joint approval. In addition, for the contract to be

enforceable, it must have a legitimate reason and the meetings of the treaty must be able to

conclude the contract (Hunter, 2017).

Common Law Contracts

Common law oversees departmental contracts, such as contracts that are not generally

managed by the Union's governing council. It is important to understand the composition of the

habitual contract because it is stricter than the training needs of shippers under the UCC. In the

absence of all elements of the usual contract, the contract may be void at this time. The

presentation shows the intensity of acceptance at another meeting and includes the basic

elements of understanding that must be clear and secure. For example, if a bidder tells you, "I

suggest that I give you my bike for four hundred dollars," at this point the offer is valid. It

contains the value, the person whose presentation was made, and the purpose of the show (ie the

bike). Makes the acceptance density in itself (Berman, 2016). The acceptance of an offer must
necessarily be identical in contracts of customary law, in order to produce a valid assumption.

This means that the acceptance must correspond to this offer. If the acceptance is not equal, it

does not fulfill the acceptance conditions and does not constitute a valid training component of

the contract.

To hear the offer, the recipient may say, "I agree to buy your bike for four hundred

dollars." If an offer is being dealt with, it will not be an acceptance at this time, provided that the

corresponding offer is not an identical representation of the offer made. In order to explain this,

lets take for instance, if the recipient declares, "I agree to buy your bike for three hundred

dollars," this will not be acceptable. To be honest, the opposite is a rejection of the offer. Once

the tenderer has rejected an offer, be it abroad or abroad (eg by refusal of recognition) or by

offering a meter, the tenderer may drop the agreement. In this model, you never have to sell your

bike anywhere in the show, regardless of whether the recipient is likely to change his decision

and chances are he might pay $100.

In the unlikely event that the presenter submits an offer before the recipient

acknowledges it, the acceptance was rejected by that rejection at that time. The bidder is not

obliged to sell the item (Schwenzer, 2016). The bidder can change the terms as for instance, he

might limit the time till the time offer is deemed to be valid. The reason of doing so might be

limiting the time in order to get the offer accepted. In the case if the offer is valid, the acceptance

must be the same at the time as stated above. A bilateral contract is a contract in which both

meetings are guaranteed. The predecessor model is a binary contract state. The warranty is as

follows:

At the time of making the offer, the offeror averred:

"I offer you my bicycle for four hundred dollars."

To which the offeree states:

"I agree to buy your bike for four hundred dollars."

In particular, it is a guarantee to sell the bike for four hundred dollars for a fee. As this is a

security guarantee, it is a bilateral contract at this time. A one-sided contract is a contract that a

tolerant party can easily recognize by an activity (Hunter, 2017). This is a precedent:

"I will make this bike for the main character who will give me four hundred dollars," he

says. The consignee says that he only gives the bidder four hundred dollars. This is an activity

guarantee. In particular, it is a guarantee to sell a bike against an activity of $ 400 in the hands of

the bidder.

Either Bilateral or Unilateral

In addition, all public service contracts must be duly taken into account. This means that

previously acts or guarantees had to be traded and both meetings should receive new services or

legitimate obligations under the agreement (Olinsky and Lippert, 2018). Imagine, you knew

another position in the organization. You have a valid employment contract, which you have

already consulted before starting work (Hunter, 2017). All contract terms are in force and the

two sessions refer to the contract. Essentially, this reflects that the person has finally agreed to

work for the definite period of time and your boss has also put in efforts and agreed to pay off

you with your desired payment and pre-defined services for your company.

Follow-up of the case of the exhibitor offering to sell his bicycle for four hundred dollars.

He says, "I offer to give you my bicycle for four hundred dollars." If you say, "I agree to buy

your bike for four hundred dollars if you cannot find it, I more and more love" is no
consideration at this time (Schwenzer, 2016). That's because you have one condition in mind.

Basically all the reports seem to have a guarantee for something, but as a guarantee it's just a

guarantee. This so-called misleading guarantee does not include a valid consideration. There is

no legitimate problem for you here, where you can discover a bike that you love more than the

one the bidder offers. You have an exit plan. The legal obstacle is a legally enforceable

vulnerability (or weight or obligation). You cannot "check out" the warranty without legal

obstacle support. It is almost certain that the other party will have to rely on the guarantee to take

the correct consideration into account. It can be the expected offer or the guarantee (either to

accomplish something or to avoid something).

Defenses for Breach of Contract

The contract between two parties should be valid as this serves to be the utmost criterion in the

formation of the contract. It is essential to consider that offer made; acceptance done and

consideration towards contract are all valid. If this is not the case, the contract will not be

considered as valid if any of the related elements are missing (Olinsky and Lippert, 2018). In

order to explain this, let’s take for an example; if I offer to sell you a car at any given price or a

fair price, this offer made is not at all consistent and sufficient because it lacked the element of

price which is important here. The words used “Fair Price” are not enough to seal the deal.

Under the terms and conditions of the common law contract, acceptance should be mirror image

of offer, if this is not the case; the acceptance is not at all valid. Similar to this, if the

consideration is also not there and does not sufficiently commits the parties to seal the deal, then

such consideration will fail too, similar happens in the illusionary promise.
Let’s take for instance, if I wanted to sell you a car costing 200,000, you like it so you accepted

to buy it, this will not be regarded as the firm commitment (Berman, 2016). This thus will fail

the consideration and no contract will be there. In a more comprehensive manner, how this

defense has to be used still remains the question. In first place, the defendant has to simply

reflect there was no contract formed because of more than one deficiency in its formation. If

UCC (Uniform commercial Code) is relevant in terms of law, under this, the formation of the

contract is comparatively simpler as in contract law. Under this the quantity is the utmost and has

to be there, other essential elements are not that mandatory to be there.

Conclusion

For the contract to be valid, the contract must be for a legitimate reason. If an illegal drug

dealer uses a pilot to transport his illegal shipment to a specific location for a fee, it is an illegal

element contract. If the street pharmacist does not respect his consent to payment or the pilot

does not respect his consent to the shipment, neither will be prosecuted in our courts, regardless

of whether the terms of the agreement are in force. Everything present and finely framed. In

addition, the salaried meetings must be able to conclude the contract for their terms to be

enforceable against him. The adult character of her voice has a limit. Minor’s need a legal limit,

but can make contracts that they can give up after their only option. Thus, if a minor signs a

contract with a threshold limit, he may revoke the contract but not the other. This means that any

contract with a minor can be revoked by the minor on the principle of the initial phase.
 Reference

Berman, P.S., 2016. The inevitable legal pluralism within universal harmonization regimes: the

case of the CISG. Uniform Law Review, 21(1), pp.23-40.

Giancaspro, M., 2017. Is a ‘smart contract’really a smart idea? Insights from a legal

perspective. Computer law & security review, 33(6), pp.825-835.

Hunter, H., 2017. Modern Law of Contracts.

Olinsky, M.S. and Lippert, M.L., 2018. IS IT A CONTRACT BREACH? IS IT A

FRAUD?. NEW JERSEY LAWYER, p.31.

Schwenzer, I., 2016. Global unification of contract law. Uniform Law Review, 21(1), pp.60-74.