Choosing between common law and the UCC — MCQs

A fitness studio contracted with an equipment company to design and install a custom indoor climbing wall system. The written agreement states a single price of $84,000: $16,000 for the anchors, panels, and other materials, and $68,000 for design, engineering, and installation labor, which is expected to take a specialized crew two weeks to complete. The company regularly designs and builds custom climbing structures for gyms. After installation, a dispute arose over whether the company's performance conformed to the agreement. The studio's lawyer must determine whether Article 2 or common law supplies the governing performance rules. Which of the following best identifies the governing law?

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare an objective memorandum assessing whether ClearView is bound by the sterilizer order signed by its purchasing coordinator. Address actual authority, apparent authority, ratification, the statute of frauds, and available practical responses. Identify the strongest arguments for both ClearView and the supplier, the most important factual investigation, and a recommended next step that preserves ClearView's defenses while reducing avoidable loss.

Using only the supplied file and legal resources, prepare an objective memorandum assessing Orchard Markets' likely recovery from ColdLine and recommending a settlement range and next negotiation step. Address direct, incidental, and consequential damages; the contractual damages limitation; mitigation; and the principal factual uncertainty.

A restaurant hired a commercial-kitchen company to replace its kitchen system for $180,000. The written agreement allocated $105,000 to standard ovens, refrigerators, and ventilation equipment and $75,000 to design, installation, and employee training. The equipment could be purchased from other suppliers, but the restaurant selected the company because it promised to redesign the kitchen for faster service. After installation, the restaurant claimed that the ventilation equipment failed to conform to the agreement. The company argued that common-law substantial-performance principles governed the entire transaction, while the restaurant asserted a right to reject nonconforming goods under Article 2. The jurisdiction follows the predominant-purpose test for mixed contracts. Which of the following is the strongest conclusion concerning the governing law?

A hotel hired a technology company to design a customized reservation platform and supply 40 standard touchscreen terminals for $240,000. The written agreement allocated $190,000 to platform design, data migration, employee training, and six months of technical support; it allocated $50,000 to the terminals. The hotel selected the company primarily because of its expertise in integrating software with the hotel's existing systems. After installation, the hotel alleged that the platform repeatedly lost reservations. The company argues that Article 2 governs and that the hotel accepted the platform by using it for three weeks. The jurisdiction applies the predominant-purpose test to mixed contracts. Which of the following is the hotel's strongest argument concerning the governing law?