To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library





Whereas under common law the disparity between the fineprint terms in the parties’ forms would have prevented the consummation of a contract when these forms are exchanged, Section 2-207 recognizes that in many, but not all, cases the parties do not impart such significance to the terms on the printed forms.
As you read the case, consider the following questions:
1. What does the court mean when it discusses the “battle of the forms”? Is the battle of the forms different from the “mirror image rule”?
2. How does the UCC 2-207 differ from the common law mirror image rule?
3. Which result, common law or UCC 2-207, is more commercially reasonable? In other words, if you were a business person, which rule would you prefer? Why?
4. Is the arbitration clause a part of the parties’ contract? Is it an additional term? Is it governed by the battle of the forms concept?
5. The United States Supreme Court has declared on a number of occasions a strong preference for upholding arbitration agreements. To what extent did that factor into the court’s decision?
United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit
453 F.2d 1161-January 6, 1972
CELEBREZZE, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from the District Court’s denial of Defendant-Appellant’s motion for a stay pending arbitration, pursuant to Section 3 of the United States Arbitration Act of 1925, 9 U.S.C. Section: 3. The suit arose after a series of over 55 transactions during 1968, 1969, and 1970 in which Plaintiffs-Appellees [hereinafter The Carpet Mart], carpet retailers in Kingsport, Tennessee, purchased carpets from Defendant-Appellant [hereinafter Collins & Aikman].

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following