Explore BrainMass

The Uniform Commercial Code and its Applicability

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

How does the UCC define a good? How does the UCC define a merchant? How are the UCC requirements different for a merchant versus a nonmerchant? Provide examples.

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 9:45 am ad1c9bdddf

Solution Preview

Thank you for the opportunity to assist you in your assignment. I am here to assist you, please do not hesitate to ask for clarification if needed.

How does the U.C.C. define a good?

Goods: All things which are moveable at the time of identification. 'Goods' also includes unborn animals, crops, or other things attached to realty that will be severed (2-105). (1)

Article 2 of the U.C.C. applies to all ―transactions in goods‖ (new or used). A ―good‖ generally means all things that are movable at the time of identification to the contract of sale. Common law SIR subjects (services, intangibles, and real estate) are not goods. The sale requirement under article 2 also excludes bailment for use, such as leases of personal property in which title does not transfer. The unborn young of animals, as well as, ...

Solution Summary

The solution explains how the UCC defines a good, merchant and its requirements for merchants and nonmerchants.

See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion: Meyer v. Henderson Construction Co.

Explanation of case Meyer v. Henderson Construction Co. using IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion)

Case: Meyers was under contract with Henderson to install overhead doors in a factory that Henderson was building. Meyers obtained the disassembled doors from the manufacturer. His contract with Henderson required Meyers to furnish all labor, materials, tools, and equipment to satisfactorily complete the installation of all overhead doors. Henderson felt the doors were not installed properly and paid less than one-half of the contract price after subtracting his cost for correcting the installation. Because of a business sale and other complications, Meyers did not sue Henderson for the difference in payment until five years later. Henderson raised the defense that because the contract was for the sale of goods, it was barred by the Code's four-year statute of limitations. Meyers claimed that it was a contract for services and that the suit could be brought within six years. Decide.

View Full Posting Details