Question

Which of the following would not be considered a good for purposes of Article 2?

	Minerals, including oil and gas, to be extracted from the land by the seller.
	Investment securities.
	Growing crops and timber.
	The unborn young of livestock.
	All of the above are considered goods under Article 2 of the UCC.

The basic distinction between contracts that are covered by Article 2 of the UCC and those covered by common law is

Question 1 options:

1)	Dependent upon whether the subject matter of the contract involves the sale of goods.

2)	Dependent upon the size of the contract in dollars.

3)	Dependent upon whether the subject matter is governed by the Statute of Frauds.

4)	Of relatively little importance since the topical coverage under the UCC and under common law is virtually identical.

5)	Common law contracts must be in writing, while Article 2 only requires a writing if the contract is for $500 or more.

Patch, a customer of Best Mart, received a "rain check" for an advertised item when the Best Mart store's supply of the item sold out. The rain check was hand-written and signed by the store's manager, and stated that the store would sell the item to Patch at the advertised price. It did not state an expiration date. When Patch returned to the store a few days later to purchase the item at the sale price, the store refused to honor the rain check, claiming that it has expired.

Patch sued to enforce the rain check under the provisions of Article 2 of the UCC. How should his case turn out?

Question 4 options:

	Patch will lose the case. Since the rain check did not contain an expiration date, it is freely revocable by the store at any time.
	Patch will lose the case. Since the rain check did not contain an expiration date, it is void due to lack of definiteness.
	Patch will win. The store is required to have sufficient inventory of all sales items to meet customer demands, and must honor the advertised price until the demand has been satisfied.
	Patch will win. The rain check satisfied the requirements of a "firm offer," and a firm offer is irrevocable for a reasonable time (not to exceed three months). A few days would be deemed a reasonable time.
	Patch will lose. He should have demanded a substitute good at the advertised price rather than accepting an undated and hand-written "rain check."

Answer 1

Q. Answer :- Option b). Investment securities.

Explanation :- Investment securities, money and things in action are not treated as goods within the meaning of Article 2.

Q. 1). Answer :- Option 5). Common law contracts must be in writing, while Article 2 only requires a writing if the contract is for $ 500 or more.

Q. 4). Answer :- Option d). Patch will win. The rain check satisfied the requirements of a "firm offer," and a firm offer is irrevocable for a reasonable time (not to exceed three months). A few days would be deemed a reasonable time.