Q.C. Onics Versus Jci

347 Words2 Pages
Onics argued that the price quotations constituted offers and JCI’s purchase orders were acceptances, which contained additional terms subject to Uniform Commercial Code or UCC 2–207 ("U.c.c. - article," ). According to Onics, the purchase orders’ termination clause would not then be part of the parties’ contracts. JCI disagreed, arguing that its purchase orders were offers and that the terms of the purchase orders were the terms of the contracts. The federal district court in northern Indiana ruled that the price quotations were not offers. “Price quotations are a daily part of commerce by which products are shopped and commercial transactions initiated. Without more, they amount to an invitation to enter into negotiations, but generally they are not offers that can be accepted to form binding contracts ("Q.c. onics, ventures,," ) In this case, “the parties' conduct and the surrounding facts and circumstances do not suggest that the parties considered the price quotations as offers ("Q.c. onics, ventures,," ).” The price quotations did not include important terms other than pricing. Most “significantly, the price quotations do not reference the quantity term—JCI's requirements—that both parties agree was a term of their agreements ("Q.c. onics, ventures,,").” If each quotation were an offer, “the requirements term would be knocked out by UCC 2–207("U.c.c. - article,"). leaving no quantity term. Other important material terms other than the termination clause may also be knocked out, leaving a contract much different than what the parties expected or intended.” The court ruled, “However, it is clear that JCI’s purchase orders were offers and they were accepted by Onics. Therefore, the terms of those offers became the terms of the agreement, including the term allowing JCI to terminate the agreements ("Q.c. onics, ventures,,").” References Q.C. onics,

More about Q.C. Onics Versus Jci

Open Document