Which of the following is true regarding Emilia's assertion that she should be allowed to recover from the baseball coach?
A)Based upon the facts given,Emilia cannot recover because the coach was not a merchant in regards to the transaction and had not signed anything showing that he was to be charged for the caps.
B)Emilia can recover only if she can prove by testimony of a witness that the coach received the confirmation letter and read it.
C)Emilia can recover because she sent the coach a confirmation letter,and he did not object within 10 days of receipt.
D)Emilia can recover because she sent the coach a confirmation letter,and he did not object within 20 days of receipt.
E)Emilia can recover because the transaction was not covered by the UCC.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)Under the UCC,if two merchants have an oral agreement,a written memo from
either party to the other is deemed to satisfy the statute of frauds,even if it is not acknowledged by the receiving party.If the memo is not objected to within 10 days of receipt,the oral agreement,memorialized by the memo,is binding.Here,the coach was not a merchant,so to be enforceable,the coach would have to have created or signed a writing regarding the order.
B)Under the UCC,if two merchants have an oral agreement,a written memo from either party to the other is deemed to satisfy the statute of frauds,even if it is not acknowledged by the receiving party.If the memo is not objected to within 10 days of receipt,the oral agreement,memorialized by the memo,is binding.Here,the coach was not a merchant,so to be enforceable,the coach would have to have created or signed a writing regarding the order.
C)Under the UCC,if two merchants have an oral agreement,a written memo from either party to the other is deemed to satisfy the statute of frauds,even if it is not acknowledged by the receiving party.If the memo is not objected to within 10 days of receipt,the oral agreement,memorialized by the memo,is binding.Here,the coach was not a merchant,so to be enforceable,the coach would have to have created or signed a writing regarding the order.
D)Under the UCC,if two merchants have an oral agreement,a written memo from either party to the other is deemed to satisfy the statute of frauds,even if it is not acknowledged by the receiving party.If the memo is not objected to within 10 days of receipt,the oral agreement,memorialized by the memo,is binding.Here,the coach was not a merchant,so to be enforceable,the coach would have to have created or signed a writing regarding the order.
E)Under the UCC,if two merchants have an oral agreement,a written memo from either party to the other is deemed to satisfy the statute of frauds,even if it is not acknowledged by the receiving party.If the memo is not objected to within 10 days of receipt,the oral agreement,memorialized by the memo,is binding.Here,the coach was not a merchant,so to be enforceable,the coach would have to have created or signed a writing regarding the order.

Which of the Following Is True Regarding Emilia's Assertion That