Reference no: EM133229774

COMMERCIAL LAW (UCC ARTICLE 2)

Mandy was the owner ofBeech Hotel Suites. On May 15, Mandy received a telephone call from Sue, a distributor of hotel supplies. Sue offered to sell 1,000 air conditioners at $350.00 each,payable 90 days after delivery, promising delivery no later than June 15.

On May 16, Mandy telephoned Sue and accepted the offer. The following day, Mandy mailed the following memo: "Please be advised that I shall take a 15 percent discount for cash payment seven days after installation." Sue received this correspondence on May 20. On June 1, Sue sent a telegram to Mandy stating"It's apparent we don't have an enforceable contract in effect. I will not be delivering the air conditioners on June 15, or any other time."

Mandy brings suit against Sue for a breach of contract. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding Sue's defenses:

1. Sue's defense is valid, because the mailed memo was inconsistent with the terms of Sue's oral offer.
2. Sue's defense is valid, because Mandy's memo was not sufficient to indicate a contract was formed.
3. Sue's defense is not valid because Sue failed to respond to Mandy's memo in a reasonable period of time.
4. Sue's defense is not valid because under the UCC theStatute of Frauds is not applicable in agreements between merchants.