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.