Source: https://lawdibles.classcaster.net/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:00:51+00:00

Document:
Lawdibles — Lawdibles: Your Audio Law Professor. A law professor explaining a narrow area of law understandably and accurately in less than ten minutes.
The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is a basic overview of when warranties are given for the sales of goods under Article 2 of the UCC. An additional podcast will discuss how warranties can be disclaimed or limited. The primary issue in warranty law is what is the level of quality that a buyer can expect in a contract for goods. This podcast will introduce you to express warranties (§ 2-313), implied warranties (§ 2-312), warranty of merchantability (§ 2-314), and implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (§ 2-315). At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify the various warranties that are given by the Code in transactions involving the sale of goods; and (2) explain the remedy the buyer is entitled to when there is a breach of warranty.
The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is the Parol Evidence Rule. In general, there is no probem with oral agreements. There are a few exceptions where the agreement has to be evidenced by a writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, but by and large oral agreements are perfectly valid.
The Parol Evidence Rule is applied where there is both a written agreement and an oral agreement. The Rule doesn’t say that once the parties have reduced their agreement to writing, no evidence of oral understandings is permitted. That would go too far, because there is nothing wrong with an agreement that is partly written and partly oral, which the Restatement of Contracts calls a “partial integration.” The evidence is only excluded when they intend the writing to be the entire agreement, which the Restatement calls a “full integration.” That is where the difficulties come up with applying the parol evidence rule — How do you determine the parties’ intention? That is, how do you determine whether they intended their agreement to be found entirely in the writing?
The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is formation of the contract under U.C.C. § 2-207. This is the first in a series of three podcasts covering the Battle of the Forms. The second podcast covers Finding the Terms of the Contract. The third covers Written Confirmations. It is best to listen to the podcasts in sequence. This podcasts discuses the “mirror image” and “last shot” rules. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify when forms have different essential terms and explain the different theories for resolving that situation; (2) identify language that makes acceptance expressly conditional; and (3) where the language makes acceptance expressly conditional and the parties create a contract by conduct, you should be able to determine what the terms of the contract are under subsection (3).
The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is U.C.C. § 2-207 Finding the Terms of the Contract. This podcast is the second in a series of three podcasts about § 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a section often referred to as the Battle of the Forms. The first podcast covered Formation of the Contract. It would probably be helpful to listen to that one before listening to this one. The third podcast covers Written Confirmations. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) identify which form comes from the offeror and which from the offeree; (2) identify the additional and different terms in the offeree’s form; (3) analyze whether an additional term is part of the contract under subsection (2), and if there is a different term, you should be able to explain the three rules that different jurisdictions use to determine the terms of the contract.
The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is written confirmations under § 2-207 of the U.C.C., a section often referred to as the Battle of the Forms. This is the third in a series of podcasts about § 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The first podcast covered Formation of the Contract. The second covered Finding the Terms of the Contract. You might want to listen to those podcasts before undertaking this one. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) analyze the situation when both parties send a confirmation after the parties have formed a contract and the confirmations contain additional or different terms; (2) explain the theory of the “rolling contract” under which the terms become part of the contract when only one party send a contract; and (3) explain and contrast this approach with the approach that applies § 2-207 to this situation, and explain what happens to the additional terms in the confirmation.
The topic of this podcast by Professor Scott J. Burnham is federal jurisdiction in contracts cases, specifically how the case got to federal court, and what law the federal court will look to in deciding the case. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) determine how that a federal court gets jurisdiction for a case and what law that court will use in deciding the issue; and (2) explain how this information is useful when conducting legal research.sue; and (2) explain how this information is useful when conducting legal research.
The topic of this podcast by Professor Jennifer Martin is the basic concepts related to the assent related defenses of fraud and misrepresentation.There are three sets of defenses that might be used to avoid enforcement of a contract which is otherwise valid: (i) capacity related defenses; (ii) assent related defenses; and (iii) public policy related defenses. At the conclusion of this podcast you should be able to (1) explain that a misrepresentation is a statement not in accord with the facts, which might be grounds for the victim to avoid the contract; (2) identify the elements of a misrepresentation defense: (i) the misrepresentation; (ii) the misrepresentation is fraudulent or material; (iii) the misrepresentation induced assent; and (iv) the victim relied and was justified in relying on the misrepresentation; and (3) identify fraud in the factum where assent is obtained by fraudulent means whereby the victim did not know they were assenting to a contract making the contract void.

References: § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2