Interpretation: ambiguity, usage and the UCC hierarchyInterpretación: ambigüedad, usos y la jerarquía del UCC
A written contract for “minimum 50% protein” feed is challenged after lots test at 49.6%. Both parties are long-time dealers in that feed, and dealers treat anything above 49.5% as 50%. The buyer argues the words are plain. Under Hurst and UCC § 1-303, what result?
Words take the meaning the trade gives them when both parties deal in that trade; usage of trade is part of the agreement unless carefully negated.Las palabras tienen el significado que les da el gremio cuando ambas partes son del gremio; el uso del comercio es parte del acuerdo salvo que se excluya expresamente.
Hurst v. W.J. Lake & Co.; UCC § 1-303
A Swiss importer orders “chicken” from a New York seller and receives stewing fowl. At trial the importer cannot show the seller knew it meant young broilers; the price was below the broiler market. Who bears the burden and who wins?
Frigaliment: the plaintiff must prove the special meaning; where the seller's meaning matched the regulatory definition and the price, the buyer lost.Frigaliment: el demandante debe probar el significado especial; como el del vendedor coincidía con la definición reglamentaria y con el precio, el comprador perdió.
Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int'l Sales Corp.
Under UCC § 1-303, when an express term, a course of performance, a course of dealing and a usage of trade cannot be reconciled, which controls?
Express terms prevail over course of performance, which prevails over course of dealing, which prevails over usage of trade (UCC § 1-303(e)).Los términos expresos prevalecen sobre el course of performance, este sobre el course of dealing y este sobre el usage of trade (UCC § 1-303(e)).
UCC § 1-303(e)
A lease requires the tenant to “deliver the premises promptly.” Which interpretive problem does the word “promptly” present?
Crespi's four problems: vagueness, ambiguity, grammatical ambiguity and gaps. “Promptly” is vague.Los cuatro problemas de Crespi: vaguedad, ambigüedad, ambigüedad gramatical y lagunas. “Promptly” es vago.
Class discussion notes, Oct 27
A contract for the sale of machinery says nothing about where delivery will occur. How is the gap filled?
The UCC fills gaps with implied-in-law terms: delivery at the seller's place of business, a reasonable price, a reasonable time.El UCC llena lagunas con términos implícitos de derecho: entrega en el domicilio del vendedor, precio razonable, plazo razonable.
UCC §§ 2-305, 2-308, 2-309
Two parties sign a written agreement that includes the clause “this document is the entire agreement between the parties.” Before signing, the seller orally promised to repaint the house. The buyer sues on the oral promise. What is the clause's effect?
Of the parol evidence topic, Crespi tests only merger clauses: a complete integration excludes prior or contemporaneous agreements, even consistent additional terms.Del tema de parol evidence, Crespi solo evalúa las merger clauses: una integración completa excluye acuerdos anteriores o simultáneos, incluso términos adicionales consistentes.
R.2d §§ 209, 216
Under R.2d § 201(2), where the parties attach different meanings to a term, the contract is interpreted according to the meaning of the party who did not know of the other's meaning, if the other party of the first party's meaning.
The party who knew or had reason to know of the other's meaning is bound by it.Quien sabía o debía saber el significado de la otra parte queda vinculado por ese significado.
Course of is the parties' repeated conduct under the very contract in dispute; course of comes from their earlier transactions.
Performance is this contract; dealing is prior contracts; usage is the trade.Performance es este contrato; dealing son contratos anteriores; usage es el gremio.