(1)A contract for 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 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.
Notes of Decisions
Norcia v. Samsung Telecomm. Am., LLC, 845 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2017).
“” Cal. Com. Code § 2204 (1). “Courts must determine whether the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe the offeree has assented to the agreement.”
Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
“” Cal. Com.Code § 2204. These principles enjoy continuing vitality in the realm of software licensing.”
Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002).
“”); see also Cal. Com.Code § 2204(1) (“A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such *29 a contract.”
Lima v. Gateway, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (C.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 2× “3d 550 (2012) (quoting Cal. Com. Code § 2204 (1)). In general, “[a]n offer to make a contract shall be construed as inviting acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances.”
In re Samsung Galaxy Smartphone Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 298 F. Supp. 3d 1285 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 2× “at 1284 (quoting Cal. Com. Code § 2204 (1) ). The court recognized the corollary that silence or inaction usually is not enough because acceptance is measured by whether an offeree's outward manifestations of consent would indicate to a reasonable person that the offeree has…”
John Dinan v. Sandisk LLC, 844 F. App'x 978 (9th Cir. 2021).
“II The complaint fails to state a claim for breach of contract.”
Wheeler v. LG Elec. USA, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00459, 2024 WL 51353 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2024).
“” Cal. Com. Code § 2204 (1). Thus, in considering the mutual 24 consent element of contract formation, “[c]ourts must determine whether the outward 25 manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe the offeree has assented to 26 the agreement.”
Cal. Commercial Code § 2204(1): 4 cases
Specht v. Netscape Commc'ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002).
“”); see also Cal. Com.Code § 2204(1) (“A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such *29 a contract.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.