A couple of questions to clarify class for me today:

A) Am I correct in saying that 1) the court decided Raffles from a subjective perspective, 2) there was no "meeting of the minds" between the two parties in connection with the "ex Peerless" term, 3) this term was quite significant to the contract, and therefore, 4) there was no binding contract?

B) Suppose the judges of the Raffles court also wrote Section 2-322 of the UCC. How would this have changed their ruling? I believe that the "UCC Raffles court" would have approached the issue from an objective perspective, and assuming shipment via the December-departing Peerless would have provided the cotton to the buyer/defendant in a "reasonable" period of time, then the contract would be binding and the buyer/defendant therefore breached. Ruling in favor of the seller/plaintiff.

Thank you in advance for any disagreements, corrections, affirmations, or general comments.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 1998