Source: https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/2730
Timestamp: 2020-07-04 02:00:35
Document Index: 602487789

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§356', '§2', '§2', '§2']

10.4.7.2	Notes - Uniform Commercial Code §§2-718, 2-719
10.4.7.2	Notes - Uniform Commercial Code §§2-718, 2-719 | Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman | October 30, 2012
1. Subsections (2), (3), and (4) of §2-718, which are not reprinted here, deal with a defaulting buyer's right to recover down payments. Reconsider the Code provisions on damages reprinted supra p. 1132. Do you take it that a liquidated damage clause, although "reasonable," would nevertheless be unenforceable under §2-718(1) if one of the damage sections provided an "adequate remedy"? If that is so, can there ever be an enforceable liquidated damage clause under the Code?
Under §§2-718(1) and 2-719, what result in Kemble v. Farren? McCarthy v. Tally? Better Food Markets v. American District Telegraph Co.? Priebe & Sons v. United States? Klar v. H. & M. Parcel Room, Inc.? Restatement Second §356(1) ("Liquidated Damages and Penalties") contains language that is nearly identical to U.C.C. §2-718(1).
Original Item: 10.4.7.2 Notes - Uniform Commercial Code §§2-718, 2-719
Lineage of: 10.4.7.2	Notes - Uniform Commercial Code §§2-718, 2-719
12/21/2012 at 21:21 by Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman