Problems on UCC Article 2
1. UCC Article 2 does not apply to this case because it doesn’t involve goods (meaning stuff that’s moveable). I would guess that property law applies instead.
2. The parts are moveable and are a good, but the labor is not a good. UCC Article 2 could apply to the parts if you can look at this as two separate transactions. Also, any existing statutes related to Martha’s status as a consumer are still in effect notwithstanding the UCC.
3. UCC Article 2 does not apply because the house is not a good. Probably real estate or property law applies.
4. Both of these transactions apply under UCC Article 2.
5. UCC Article 2 does not apply to security transactions. This is one of those.
6. In the first situation, I would advise Dealer that he will not be able to recover damages in the first case because the market price on August 15th was lower than the contract price, and thus under UCC § 2-713, he would not be entitled to any damages. If the market price on August 15th and thereafter had been $3.50, Dealer could have recovered the market price minus the contract price of the goods, which would have been $0.50 per bushel times 10,000 bushels, or $5,000, not including “incidental and consequential damages”. If Dealer had paid Farmer Brown $5,000 down, but the market price was $2.60, Dealer could only recover the $5,000 as restitution damages.