Question

Harry regularly shipped 100 cartons of electronic goods to Keith on the 15th of every month as per the original agreement. He had been continuing this shipment routine for over a year. On the 20th day of one of the months, Keith refused the goods as he did not want Harry to ship those goods to him and had never accepted any such offer of goods. Harry had not received any prior notification to cancel the shipment of goods. Which of the following statements is true of this situation?
A. Keith can sue Harry based on the doctrine of promissory estoppel.B. Keith's prior act of dealing and conduct with Harry confirms acceptance of the offer.C. Harry used duress in controlling the terms of the offer.D. Keith can sue Harry based on the misstatement of the facts of the offer.E. Harry should have ensured only partial delivery of goods as he received no oral confirmation from Keith about the shipment of goods.

Answer 1

Answer:

B) Keith's prior act of dealing and conduct with Harry confirms acceptance of the offer.

Explanation:

The UCC establishes several rules regarding valid offers, but when both parties are merchants, the rules are much more flexible since both parties are generally involve in this type of transactions because they are part of their work.

For example, an offer between merchants doesn't need to be sent out every time in writing and accepted with a signature (as offers over $500 between non-merchants), the previous deals, requests and offers can serve as confirmation of acceptance.

In this case, Harry's previous acceptance of Keith's shipments during one year serve as a confirmation of acceptance of a current offer. Harry knew that Keith was going to deliver the goods next month, and if he didn't want them anymore, he should have clearly stated it.