Reference no: EM133681493

Question

In this case the UCC provides a contract of a sale of a boat between Van Houten and Rita Evenwell. In the contract they had both agreed on a fair share of their side of the contract by Houten even changing the amount of years it is going to take to complete the payments of the boat. Rita Evenwell had agreed to the change in an email reply instead of a regular mail contract, which was the way the contract was handled. When it comes to the change of heart for the boat on Van Houten's side is a fair agreement but since the contract is already signed and agreed upon it is going to be harder to pull out last second. Due to this, Van Houten had stated that the contract was already invalid due to the mirror-image rule. When Evenwell finds out about this she retaliates by suing him and stating that this is incorrect and that the UCC applies to this contract case. If they do come to court though I do believe that Rita Evenwell is going to having the win outcome of this case. This is because the mirror-image rule does not apply to this contract as they were both in an agreement of the change of years even though it wasn't on paper. If Evenwell had not noticed the change and didn't agree to allowing more time to pay then it would be valid of the mirror-image rule as only one side of the party agreed to it while the other was oblivious to the change allowing the contract to be broken. Although, Van Houten's change of heart last second was an attempt to invalidate the contract based.