Redrafting U.C.C. section 2-207: An economic prescription for the battle of the forms

Denver University Law Review

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 403-424

  Ostas, Daniel T ^a   Darr, Frank P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042237535     PISSN: 08839409     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
2. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
3. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
4. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
5. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
6. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
7. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
8. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
9. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
10. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
11. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
12. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
13. For a representative sampling of the literature, see Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of Section 2-207, 68 VA. L. REV. 1217 (1982); John E. Murray, Jr., The Chaos of the 'Battle of the Forms': Solutions, 39 VAND. L. REV. 1307 (1986) [hereinafter Murray Chaos]; Gregory M. Travalio, Clearing the Air After the Battle: Reconciling Fairness and Efficiency in a Formal Approach to U.C.C. Section 2-207, 33 CASE W. RES. L. REV. 327 (1983). The Business Lawyer devoted a recent symposium issue to the current efforts to redraft § 2-207. Contributions include: Henry D. Gabriel, The Battle of the Forms: A Comparison of the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, the Common Law, and the Uniform Commercial Code, 49 BUS. LAW. 1053 (1994); Daniel A. Levin & Ellen B. Rubert, Beyond U.C.C. Section 2-207: Should Professor Murray's Proposed Revision Be Adopted?, 11 J.L. & COM. 175 (1992); Thomas J. McCarthy, An Introduction: The Commercial Irrelevancy of the 'Battle of the Forms', 49 BUS. LAW. 1019 (1994); Mark E. Roszkowski & John D. Wladis, Revised U.C.C. Section 2-207: Analysis and Recommendations, 49 BUS. LAW. 1065 (1994); John D. Wladis, U.C.C. Section 2-207: The Drafting History, 49 BUS. LAW. 1029 (1994). For a useful appendix summarizing all known proposals for redrafting § 2-207, see Mark E. Roszkowski, Ending the Battle of the Forms: A Proposed Revision of U.C.C. Section 2-207, 26 UCC L.J. 144, 164-71 (1993). Articles cited in Professor Roszkowski's appendix include: John E. Murray, A Proposed Revision of Section 2-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code, 6 J.L. & COM. 337 (1986); Comeill A. Stephens, On Ending the Battle of the Forms: Problems with Solutions, 80 KY. L.J. 815 (1992) [sic]; and Charles M. Thatcher, Sales Contract Formation and Content-An Annotated Apology for a Proposed Revision of Uniform Commercial Code Section 2-207, 32 S.D. L. REV. 181 (1987).
14. Professors White and Summers devote 21 pages of their treatise to problems generated by § 2-207. JAMES J. WHITE & ROBERT S. SUMMERS, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE 28-49 (3d ed. 1988). Their review of applicable case law reveals a variety of inconsistent interpretations and problems associated with the section. Id.
15. Professors White and Summers devote 21 pages of their treatise to problems generated by § 2-207. JAMES J. WHITE & ROBERT S. SUMMERS, UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE 28-49 (3d ed. 1988). Their review of applicable case law reveals a variety of inconsistent interpretations and problems associated with the section. Id.
16. A Drafting Committee was created by the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code, with the approval of the National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute. The Drafting Committee began work in 1991 and has produced a series of draft revisions. The most current official draft of § 2-207 is dated December 20, 1994. See infra notes 62-73 and accompanying text.
17. Professor Horwitz observes that "the entire conceptual apparatus of modern contract doctrine - rules dealing with offer and acceptance, the evidentiary function of consideration, and especially canons of interpretation" were firmly in place by the early nineteenth century. MORTON J. HORWITZ, THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN LAW 1780-1860, at 160-61 (1977).
18. Under the "mirror image rule," a reply that purports to be an acceptance but that varies the offer's terms is not an acceptance, but a counteroffer. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS §§ 58, 59 rep.'s note regarding cmt. a; WHITE & SUMMERS, supra note 2, at 29.
19. Professors Baird and Weisberg argue that the mirror image rule was seldom applied so rigidly as to allow parties to welsh. Baird & Weisberg, supra note 1, at 1233-36.
20. Professor Slawson estimates standard forms are used in up to 99% of all contracts. W. David Slawson, Standard Form Contracts and Democratic Control of Lawmaking Power, 84 HARV. L. REV. 529, 529 (1971).
21. See Stewart Macaulay, Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study, 28 AM. SOC. REV. 55, 56-58 (1963); see also Russell J. Weintraub, A Survey of Contract Practice and Policy, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1 (surveying current contract practices and practitioners' opinions on elimination of the legal sanctions for breach, the role of the law in practitioners' behavior, and the proper treatment of frustration).
22. See Stewart Macaulay, Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study, 28 AM. SOC. REV. 55, 56-58 (1963); see also Russell J. Weintraub, A Survey of Contract Practice and Policy, 1992 WIS. L. REV. 1 (surveying current contract practices and practitioners' opinions on elimination of the legal sanctions for breach, the role of the law in practitioners' behavior, and the proper treatment of frustration).
23. See. e.g., Poel v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 110 N.E. 619 (N.Y. 1915) (buyer took advantage of the mirror image rule when market price fell); Cram v. Long, 142 N.W. 267 (Wis. 1913) (mirror image rule provided an excuse even though differences in offer and reply were relatively minor).
24. See JOHN E. MURRAY, JR., MURRAY ON CONTRACTS 113 (1974).
25. Id.
26. Professors White and Summers note that the primary purpose of § 2-207 was to change the mirror image rule so as to hold the bad faith welsher to the deal. WHITE & SUMMERS, supra note 2, at 28-29.
27. This is commonly referred to as the "last shot" rule. The party who sends the last form has an advantage. See JAMES BROOK, SALES AND LEASES: EXAMPLES AND EXPLANATIONS 56 (1994).
28. For a thorough discussion of the drafting history of § 2-207, see Wladis, supra note 1; see also Murray Chaos, supra note 1, at 1311-22 (discussing § 2-207 in light of the overall purposes of U.C.C. Article 2).
29. U.C.C. § 2-207(1) (West 1994).
30. Section 2-204 provides: (1) A contract for the sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract. (2) An agreement sufficient to constitute a contract for the sale may be found even . though the moment of its making is undetermined. (3) Even though one or more terms are left open a contract for sale does not fail for indefiniteness if the parties have intended to make a contract and there is a reasonably certain basis for giving an appropriate remedy. U.C.C. § 2-204 (West 1994).
31. Section 2-206 provides in pertinent part: (1) Unless otherwise unambiguously indicated by the language or circumstances (a) an offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances . . . . U.C.C. § 2-206(1)(a) (West 1994).
32. See Murray Chaos, supra note 1, at 1311-19.
33. See Baird & Weisberg, supra note 1, at 1224-26.
34. U.C.C. § 2-207(1).
35. See discussion infra notes 58-61.
36. U.C.C. § 2-207(2).
37. Professors White and Summers consider whether silence in an acceptance can ever over-ride an express provision contained in the offer, and conclude that it cannot. WHITE & SUMMERS, supra note 2, at 36.
38. See supra text accompanying note 15.
39. See infra text accompanying note 32.
40. See WHITE & SUMMERS, supra note 2, at 33-35.
41. Id.
42. W. at 33 (citing Roto-Lith, Ltd. v. F.P. Bartlett & Co., 297 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1962)).
43. Id. at 34 (citing, among other cases, Reaction Molding Techs., Inc. v. General Elec. Co., 588 F. Supp. 1280 (E.D. Pa. 1984)).
44. Id. (citing Daitom, Inc. v. Pennwalt Corp., 741 F.2d 1569 (10th Cir. 1984)).
45. In our view, the best interpretation of the current law on "differing terms" begins with a careful separation of contract formation from contract content issues. If no executory contract is created on the exchange of forms, but the parties nonetheless perform, then the gap filler approach of § 2-207(3) controls. See infra text accompanying note 60. By contrast, if the exchange of forms establishes an executory contract under § 2-207(1), then, under current law, the terms of the offer control. The point, however, is that alternative statutory constructions are not only possible, but followed in many courts. Interestingly, Professors White and Summers disagree on the preferred approach. White prefers the gap filler solution. WHTTE & SUMMERS, supra note 2, at 34. Summers would create a preference in favor of the offer, the "first shot" rule. Id. at 34-35.
46. U.C.C. § 2-207(3).
47. U.C.C. § 2-305 provides judicial authority to impose a price term omitted by the parties.
48. See McCarthy, supra note 1, at 1022.
49. Professor Murray refers to this recurring fact pattern as the "counter-offer riddle." Murray Chaos, supra note 1, at 1322-26, 1343-54.
50. See supra notes 26-31 and accompanying text.
51. By "economic" approach we refer to that body of literature usually traced to Ronald Coase's seminal essay and expounded by Judge Posner. See RICHARD A. POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW (3d ed. 1986); R.H. Coase, The Problems of Social Cost, 3 J.L. & ECON. 1 (1960); see also ANTHONY T. KRONMAN & RICHARD A. POSNER, THE ECONOMICS OF CONTRACT LAW (1979); READINGS IN THE ECONOMICS OF CONTRACT LAW (Victor P. Goldberg ed., 1989).
52. By "economic" approach we refer to that body of literature usually traced to Ronald Coase's seminal essay and expounded by Judge Posner. See RICHARD A. POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW (3d ed. 1986); R.H. Coase, The Problems of Social Cost, 3 J.L. & ECON. 1 (1960); see also ANTHONY T. KRONMAN & RICHARD A. POSNER, THE ECONOMICS OF CONTRACT LAW (1979); READINGS IN THE ECONOMICS OF CONTRACT LAW (Victor P. Goldberg ed., 1989).
53. By "economic" approach we refer to that body of literature usually traced to Ronald Coase's seminal essay and expounded by Judge Posner. See RICHARD A. POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW (3d ed. 1986); R.H. Coase, The Problems of Social Cost, 3 J.L. & ECON. 1 (1960); see also ANTHONY T. KRONMAN & RICHARD A. POSNER, THE ECONOMICS OF CONTRACT LAW (1979); READINGS IN THE ECONOMICS OF CONTRACT LAW (Victor P. Goldberg ed., 1989).
54. By "economic" approach we refer to that body of literature usually traced to Ronald Coase's seminal essay and expounded by Judge Posner. See RICHARD A. POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW (3d ed. 1986); R.H. Coase, The Problems of Social Cost, 3 J.L. & ECON. 1 (1960); see also ANTHONY T. KRONMAN & RICHARD A. POSNER, THE ECONOMICS OF CONTRACT LAW (1979); READINGS IN THE ECONOMICS OF CONTRACT LAW (Victor P. Goldberg ed., 1989).
55. See generally Daniel T. Ostas & Burt A. Leete, Economic Analysis of Law as a Guide to Post Communist Legal Reforms: The Case of Hungarian Contract Law, 32 AM. BUS. L.J. 355 (1995) (developing and applying the three tenets in a comparative law setting); Daniel T. Ostas & Frank P. Darr, Understanding Commercial Impracticability: Tempering Efficiency with Community Fairness Norms, 27 RUTGERS L.J. (forthcoming 1996) (applying the three tenets to the doctrine of commercial impracticability).
56. See generally Daniel T. Ostas & Burt A. Leete, Economic Analysis of Law as a Guide to Post Communist Legal Reforms: The Case of Hungarian Contract Law, 32 AM. BUS. L.J. 355 (1995) (developing and applying the three tenets in a comparative law setting); Daniel T. Ostas & Frank P. Darr, Understanding Commercial Impracticability: Tempering Efficiency with Community Fairness Norms, 27 RUTGERS L.J. (forthcoming 1996) (applying the three tenets to the doctrine of commercial impracticability).
57. See JOSEPH SCHUMPETER, HISTORY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 185-87 (1954).
58. See, e.g., Richard E. Speidel, The New Spirit of Contract, 2 J.L. & COM. 193 (1982).
59. Id. at 524. The burden, of course, is not insurmountable. For example, economic reasoning supports governmental intervention in cases of unconscionability and commercial impracticability. See generally Daniel T. Ostas, Predicting Unconscionability Decisions: An Economic Model and an Empirical Test, 29 AM. BUS. L.J. 535 (1991) (using economic theory to predict unconscionability outcomes); Ostas & Darr, supra note 38 (justifying governmental intervention for commercial impracticability on economic grounds). Governmental "intervention" is also needed to fill in the omissions in contracts. Omissions occur for a variety of reasons. For example, an omission may result from the calculated desire of a party in the weaker bargaining position to enter the bargain without a particular clause with the hope or expectation that the problem will not occur. E. Allan Farnsworth, Disputes over Omission in Contracts, 68 COLUM. L. REV. 860, 872-73 (1968).
60. Id. at 524. The burden, of course, is not insurmountable. For example, economic reasoning supports governmental intervention in cases of unconscionability and commercial impracticability. See generally Daniel T. Ostas, Predicting Unconscionability Decisions: An Economic Model and an Empirical Test, 29 AM. BUS. L.J. 535 (1991) (using economic theory to predict unconscionability outcomes); Ostas & Darr, supra note 38 (justifying governmental intervention for commercial impracticability on economic grounds). Governmental "intervention" is also needed to fill in the omissions in contracts. Omissions occur for a variety of reasons. For example, an omission may result from the calculated desire of a party in the weaker bargaining position to enter the bargain without a particular clause with the hope or expectation that the problem will not occur. E. Allan Farnsworth, Disputes over Omission in Contracts, 68 COLUM. L. REV. 860, 872-73 (1968).
61. Id. at 524. The burden, of course, is not insurmountable. For example, economic reasoning supports governmental intervention in cases of unconscionability and commercial impracticability. See generally Daniel T. Ostas, Predicting Unconscionability Decisions: An Economic Model and an Empirical Test, 29 AM. BUS. L.J. 535 (1991) (using economic theory to predict unconscionability outcomes); Ostas & Darr, supra note 38 (justifying governmental intervention for commercial impracticability on economic grounds). Governmental "intervention" is also needed to fill in the omissions in contracts. Omissions occur for a variety of reasons. For example, an omission may result from the calculated desire of a party in the weaker bargaining position to enter the bargain without a particular clause with the hope or expectation that the problem will not occur. E. Allan Farnsworth, Disputes over Omission in Contracts, 68 COLUM. L. REV. 860, 872-73 (1968).
62. See generally Friedrich A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, 35 AM. ECON. REV. 519, 519-30 (1945) (defending the doctrine of freedom of contract as a means to economize on idiosyncratic and widely dispersed information).
63. KRONMAN & POSNER, supra note 37, at 5.
64. Many contract doctrines serve this evidentiary inquiry. For example, doctrines that require a writing, insist upon an exchange of consideration, or inquire into the presence of fraud or duress, all seek to "objectify" an inherently subjective inquiry. See Randy E. Barnett, A Consent Theory of Contract, 86 COLUM. L. REV. 269, 272-74 (1986); see also Morris R. Cohen, The Basis of Contract, 46 HARV. L. REV. 553 (1933) (discussing the interplay between objective and subjective inquiries into consent). The inevitable slippage in these evidentiary surrogates leads to both over-enforcement and under-enforcement of contractual language. Over-enforcement occurs when the courts impose a contract absent true individual consent. Under-enforcement results from a judicial unwillingness to impose transfers that were indeed consensual. The battle of the forms must respond to this tension. If it follows an economic logic, it will seek to minimize the sum of over-enforcement and under-enforcement costs.
65. Many contract doctrines serve this evidentiary inquiry. For example, doctrines that require a writing, insist upon an exchange of consideration, or inquire into the presence of fraud or duress, all seek to "objectify" an inherently subjective inquiry. See Randy E. Barnett, A Consent Theory of Contract, 86 COLUM. L. REV. 269, 272-74 (1986); see also Morris R. Cohen, The Basis of Contract, 46 HARV. L. REV. 553 (1933) (discussing the interplay between objective and subjective inquiries into consent). The inevitable slippage in these evidentiary surrogates leads to both over-enforcement and under-enforcement of contractual language. Over-enforcement occurs when the courts impose a contract absent true individual consent. Under-enforcement results from a judicial unwillingness to impose transfers that were indeed consensual. The battle of the forms must respond to this tension. If it follows an economic logic, it will seek to minimize the sum of over-enforcement and under-enforcement costs.
66. One must recognize that contractual terms may be inextricably integrated in the minds of the parties. The seller is willing to sell at price X, but only if its boilerplate warranty disclaimer is upheld. The buyer may be willing to pay X, but only if a standard warranty of merchantability applies. Hence, the apparent agreement on price becomes illusory, and holding the parties to that express price can no longer be justified on the mere grounds that the forms do not conflict on that term. Since the principle of autonomy is no guide, the court should determine the price with an eye toward creating a precedent that encourages future parties to bargain more effectively. See infra text accompanying notes 47-54.
67. See Randy E. Barnett, The Sound of Silence: Default Rules and Contractual Consent, 78 VA. L. REV. 821, 885-97 (1992).
68. Contract law reduces transaction costs in three ways: (1) by summarily enforcing express contractual agreements it provides a disincentive for breach; (2) by providing standard customary terms it removes the necessity to bargain over all the details of a particular exchange; and (3) through the laws of fraud, undue influence, duress, and unconscionability it discourages mislead-ing conduct in contract negotiations. KRONMAN & POSNER, supra note 37, at 4. All three concerns are motivated by battle of the forms.
69. Transaction costs include the costs of bargaining, performing, and enforcing contractual matters. Ostas & Leete, supra note 38, at 366. Enforcement costs, including the costs of litigation, are discussed under our third tenet - providing legal stability.
70. Advances in technology continue to reduce these costs by replacing standard forms with "electronic data interchanges." McCarthy, supra note 1, at 1024.
71. See supra text accompanying note 45-46.
72. Relational interests developed over a period of time often create enforceable legal obligations. See generally IAN R. MACNEIL, THE NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT (1980) (dealing with the roots of contract, its role in projecting exchange into the future, and the normative aspects of contracts). While a sales contract, standing alone, is hardly the prototypical relational contract, the courts will look to the parties' history to determine the materiality of an additional term. See, e.g., St. Charles Cable TV v. Eagle Comtronics, Inc., 687 F. Supp. 820, 827 (S.D.N.Y. 1988), aff d, 895 F.2d 1410 (2d Cir. 1989). Thus, context and history of the transaction serve important roles in limiting the parties' negotiating costs.
73. See POSNER, supra note 37, at 85.
74. As part of the reform process, all Article 2 gap fillers are under review. Sellers seem particularly keen on changing the implied warranties provided by the U.C.C. See Roszkowski & Wladis, supra note 1, at 1068-69.
75. See Baird & Weisberg, supra note 1, at 1250-51 (using this illustration as a reason to return to a modified version of the mirror image rule).
76. See supra text accompanying notes 26-31.
77. This standard would complement §§ 2-204 and 2-206. See supra notes 12-14 and accompanying text.
78. See supra text accompanying note 32.
79. See generally Baird & Weisberg, supra note 1, at 1260-61 (weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a conspicuousness requirement in this context).
80. Under this proposal, the shipping of goods is interpreted as an offer to contract based on agreed terms, matching terms, and gap fillers. If the receiving party takes delivery, then that offer is accepted. Hence, either party could avoid contract formation by expressly conditioning its form and then refusing to deliver or to take delivery.
81. This is the counteroffer riddle. See supra text accompanying note 35.
82. Our proposal would also remove the present incentive to draft long and detailed form contracts. Under current law, reciting all U.C.C. gap fillers in one's form is well advised. Since it is harder to introduce "different" terms into a contract than it is to include "additional" terms, it is important to make sure customary as well as non-customary terms appear on one's form. Under our proposal, the only terms needed on a standardized form are those terms that contradict custom. There would be no advantage in reciting U.C.C. gap fillers chapter and verse. This should help the parties maintain the advantages of form contracting while simultaneously empowering them to craft their own exchange.
83. McCarthy, supra note 1, at 1020 n.5.
84. An Appraisal of the March 1, 1990, Preliminary Report of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 2 Study Group, 16 DEL. J. CORP. L. 981 (1991) [hereinafter Preliminary Report].
85. An Appraisal of the March 1, 1990, Preliminary Report of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 2 Study Group, 16 DEL. J. CORP. L. 981 (1991) [hereinafter Preliminary Report].
86. McCarthy, supra note 1, at 1020.
87. Proceedings in the Committee of the Whole, Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2, Sales, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS (1994) (Chicago, Ill., July 29-Aug. 4) [hereinafter Proceedings].
88. Zan Hale, UCC Article 2 Drafting Committee Faces Critics, CORP. LEGAL TIMES, Oct. 1994, at 24. The changes discussed in this section are one part of a significant proposed redesign of Article 2 to accommodate the growth of leasing and sale of software as well as to revise problematic sections of the existing Article 2. See Raymond T. Nimmer, Intangibles Contracts: Thoughts of Hubs, Spokes, and Reinvigorating Article 2, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1337 (1994).
89. Zan Hale, UCC Article 2 Drafting Committee Faces Critics, CORP. LEGAL TIMES, Oct. 1994, at 24. The changes discussed in this section are one part of a significant proposed redesign of Article 2 to accommodate the growth of leasing and sale of software as well as to revise problematic sections of the existing Article 2. See Raymond T. Nimmer, Intangibles Contracts: Thoughts of Hubs, Spokes, and Reinvigorating Article 2, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1337 (1994).
90. Preliminary Report, supra note 63, at 1056 (citing Murray, supra note 1; Murray Chaos, supra note 1). For further discussion of the Preliminary Report, see Alex Devience, Jr., The Recommendations to Revise Article 2, 24 UCC L.J. 349, 352 (1992) (suggesting that the changes reflect a broader agenda to weaken the traditional approach to formation and move the Article toward principles consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Contracts).
91. Preliminary Report, supra note 63, at 1056-57.
92. Richard E. Speidel, Contract Formation and Modification Under Revised Article 2, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1305, 1325 (1994).
93. For the text of the 1994 revision, see infra text accompanying note 71.
94. Proceedings, supra note 65, at 56. The first reading of § 2-204 produced no comments from the attending commissioners. Id.
95. Id. at 58. The first reading of § 2-206 produced no comments from the attending commissioners. Id. at 59.
96. Id. at 59-60.
97. McCarthy, supra note 1, at 1022.
98. The complexity and inconsistency of § 2-207 decisions have led proponents of some variation of the existing statute to suggest that this complexity has allowed the courts to do justice in particular cases. Preliminary Report, supra note 63, at 1062. We do not attempt to enter that particular fray. Some have suggested that the criticism is to hide a more broadly based concern that any alternative that results in the explicit recognition of using gap fillers would result in contracts that are unfair to vendors. Roszkowski & Wladis, supra note 1, at 1068-70.
99. By "gamesmanship" we refer to the practice of each party drafting a clause that states the terms on its form must control and no others, and that shipment or taking delivery constitutes acceptance of these terms. See supra note 34 and accompanying text. Armed with such a clause, parties have an incentive to additionally "game" the system by being the last party to send a form. See supra text accompanying note 35.
100. An example of this approach is taken in U.C.C. § 2-719 (West 1995). In this section, the seller must indicate that the intended remedy is exclusive. Similarly, under § 2-316(2), an attempt to disclaim a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose must be in writing and conspicuous.
101. Proceedings, supra note 65, at 59-60.
102. But see infra text accompanying notes 82-83.
103. In this context, express agreement is a necessary, but not sufficient, reason for an uncustomary term to enter the contract. Express language does not control if derived through duress, misrepresentation, or unconscionable business conduct.
104. See supra note 45.
105. In addition to the comments in the text, there were two identifiable drafting errors in the 1994 draft. The reference to subsection (a) in the opening clause of subsection (d) should read "subsection (b)" and the first use of "terms" in subsection (d)(2) should be removed. Proceedings, supra note 65, at 60, 64.
106. A discussion draft circulated in December, 1994 dropped the reference to "varying terms." Copy on file with the authors.
107. Roszkowski & Wladis, supra note 1, at 1077-78.
108. Proceedings, supra note 65, at 60.
109. Id.
110. Roszkowski & Wladis, supra note 1, at 1074.
111. Roszkowski and Wladis raise a similar concern in a prior version of proposed § 2-207 containing similar language. Id.
112. For a similar argument, see id. at 1074-75, 1078.
113. KARL LLEWELLYN, THE COMMON LAW TRADITION 368-69 (1960).