A sheep rancher agreed in writing to sell all the wool shornfrom her sheep during the next shearing season to Wool Weavers,Inc. The writing did not include a price or any statement as to thequantity of wool to be delivered. After the shearing season ended,the sheep rancher refused to deliver the wool to Wool Weavers,Inc., denying that they had a contract.

Wool Weavers has sued under the provisions of Article 2. Howshould this case be decided?

	Wool Weavers, Inc. will win. This is a valid and enforcementoutput contract.
	Wool Weavers, Inc. will win. The agreement with the sheeprancher was in writing and signed, so she cannot deny that theyreached an agreement.
	Wool Weavers, Inc. will lose. An agreement can omiteither price or quantity, but it cannot omit bothand remain enforceable.
	Wool Weavers, Inc. will lose. The agreement is unenforceable dueto a lack of definite terms or a definite time for performance.
	Since two terms were omitted from the agreement, the partiesmust go to arbitration to resolve the controversy.

Filmore purchased a new TV from Allison's Appliances, Inc., anauthorized TV dealer. The price was $499. The written contractcontained a one-year warranty as to parts and labor as long as theset was returned to an authorized dealer for any repairs oradjustments. The contract also contained a disclaimer of anyexpress warranty protection other than the specific expresswarranties covered in the contract. It also stated that the writingwas the entire contract.

Filmore claims that during his discussion with the sales personhe was orally promised that the TV would be serviced in his home atno cost if anything went wrong during the first six months afterthe sale.

Which of the following would be Allison's best defense againstthis alleged warranty?

Question 10 options:

	1) The Statute of Frauds.
	2) The parol evidence rule.
	3) That all warranty protections were properly disclaimed in thewritten contract.
	4) That the sales person lacked the apparent authority to grant anywarranty protections.
	5) That providing in-home repair services is not commerciallyreasonable.

In September Cobb Company contracted with Thrifty Oil topurchase 100,000 gallons of heating oil from thrifty at a price of$1.95 per gallon, with delivery to be made in 4 shipments of 25,000gallons at 3 week intervals over the next winter.

Because of an unseasonably warm winter, Cobb only took deliveryof three shipments, refusing the fourth and final 25,000 gallonshipment because it wasn't needed. Thrifty is suing Cobb for breachof contract. What result?

Question 11 options:

	1) Thrifty will lose. Cobb was excused from performance due to theunexpectedly mild winter.
	2) Thrifty will lose. Both parties are merchants and the UCCrequires merchants to act in a commercially reasonable manner.Paying for heating oil that is not needed is not commerciallyreasonable.
	3) Thrifty will win because this is a requirement contract and Cobbagreed that it would require four shipments.
	4) Thrifty will win because Cobb agreed to purchase 100,000gallons, to be delivered in four shipments. The change incircumstances due to weather did not excuse performance. Bush Hardware ordered 300 Ram brand hammers from Obama Tools.Obama Tools accepted the order in writing. On the final day beforedelivery was due, Obama discovered that it did not have enough Rambrand hammers to fill the order, so it sent 300 Strong brandhammers instead. Obama stated on its invoice that the shipment wassent as an accommodation due to a shortage of Ram brandhammers. Which of the following statements is true in this situation? Question 12 options: 1) Obama's note of accommodation effectively cancels the contractwith Bush, excusing Obama from any duty to deliver. 2) Bush's order can be accepted only by shipping Ram brand hammers.Obama is therefore in breach of contract. 3) Obama's shipment of another brand is an accommodation shipment,allowing Bush the option of accepting the substitute performance assatisfaction of the contract or returning the substituteperformance with no further obligations for either party. 4) Obama's shipment of Strong brand hammers is a counter-offer toBush's original offer, and no contract currently exists between theparties. 5) Obama accepted when it shipped hammers, but breached since itshipped the wrong hammers
	5) Thrifty will win because the agreement was in writing andwritten contracts are always enforced.