UBE Question of the Day

The Answer is : D.

This is similar to the case covered by all first year law schools involving several parties who contracted for the delivery of cotton aboard the “Peerless,” with each party having a different ship named “Peerless” in mind. Raffles v. Wichelhaus, 159 Eng. Rep. 375, 375 (Exch.1864) (per curiam). In this question, even though the parties both thought they had entered into a contract, both objectively and reasonably had a different belief about an essential term of the contract, namely, the scope of the services. Because both parties reasonably and objectively failed to agree on that which they thought they were agreeing (there was no “meeting of the minds”), no contract resulted. Therefore, choice (D) is correct.

UCC §2-202, which permits the courts to consider usage in the trade, and §2-204, which gives the court a great deal of latitude in finding a sale of goods contract, are inapplicable here because this question involved a contract for services, not the sale of goods. Therefore, choice (A), which attempts to find a contract based on the terms upon which both parties agreed, and choice (B), which tries to employ terms customary in the trade, are not the best answers here. Finally, choice (C) is incorrect because the parties never agreed on the homeowner’s terms.