(1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms. (2) The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract. Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless: (a) the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer; (b) they materially alter it; or
(c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received. (3) Conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract is sufficient to establish a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract. In such case the terms of the particular contract consist of those terms on which the writings of the parties agree, together with any supplementary terms incorporated under any other provisions of this act. Laws 1961, p. 78, § 2-207.
Notes of Decisions
Rogers v. Dell Comput. Corp., 2005 OK 51, 138 P.3d 826.
· cites it 2× “(2) The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract.”
Rogers v. Dell Comput. Corp., 2005 OK 51, 127 P.3d 560.
· cites it 2× “(2) The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract.”
Lively v. Ijam, Inc., 2005 OK CIV APP 29, 114 P.3d 487.
· cites it 4× “In such cases, where the writings of the parties do not establish a contract, it is not necessary to determine which act or document constituted the offer and which the acceptances.”
Northrip v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 529 P.2d 489 (Okla. 1974).
· cites it 2× “, followed and in due course answers were filed separately by Gould in the form of a general denial; by ESB in the form of general denial, contributory negligence, failure to notify under 12A O.S.1971, § 2-207(2) (c); and, by Ward’s in the form of a general denial, contributory…”
Ollie v. Rainbolt, 669 P.2d 275 (Okla. 1983).
“Under § 2-207 all additional or different terms in acceptance become part of the contract unless “.”
Simpson Props., Inc. v. Oexco, Inc., 916 P.2d 853 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “[3] Our conclusion is buttressed by the general provisions of 12A O.S.1991 § 2-207 and note 5 of the Uniform Commercial Code Comments to that section.”
Bama Companies, Inc., The v. Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc., No. 4:18-cv-00045 (N.D. Okla. June 20, 2024).
· cites it 4× “10 Section 2-207, codified in Oklahoma law at 12A O.S. § 2-207 and titled “Additional Terms in Acceptance or Confirmation,” is “a murky bit of prose” within the UCC.”
CMI Roadbuilding Inc v. Specsys Inc, No. 5:18-cv-01245 (W.D. Okla. July 1, 2021).
· cites it 2× “15, § 73 (2); Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2-207. Accordingly, § 2-207(2) is immaterial, even assuming the Purchase Orders are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code.”
CMI Roadbuilding Inc v. Specsys Inc, 550 F. Supp. 3d 1180 (W.D. Okla. 2021).
· cites it 2× “15, § 73 (2); Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2-207. Accordingly, § 2-207(2) is immaterial, even assuming the Purchase Orders are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2-207(1): 1 case
Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2-207(2): 6 cases
Lively v. Ijam, Inc., 2005 OK CIV APP 29, 114 P.3d 487.
“In such cases, where the writings of the parties do not establish a contract, it is not necessary to determine which act or document constituted the offer and which the acceptances.”
Northrip v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 529 P.2d 489 (Okla. 1974).
“, followed and in due course answers were filed separately by Gould in the form of a general denial; by ESB in the form of general denial, contributory negligence, failure to notify under 12A O.S.1971, § 2-207(2) (c); and, by Ward’s in the form of a general denial, contributory…”
CMI Roadbuilding Inc v. Specsys Inc, No. 5:18-cv-01245 (W.D. Okla. July 1, 2021).
“15, § 73 (2); Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2-207. Accordingly, § 2-207(2) is immaterial, even assuming the Purchase Orders are governed by the Uniform Commercial Code.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2-207(2)(c): 1 case
Northrip v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 529 P.2d 489 (Okla. 1974).
“, followed and in due course answers were filed separately by Gould in the form of a general denial; by ESB in the form of general denial, contributory negligence, failure to notify under 12A O.S.1971, § 2-207(2) (c); and, by Ward’s in the form of a general denial, contributory…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 2-207(3): 1 case
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.