Subject matter Common law governs all contracts unless displaced by the UCC in the sale of goods. A. Goods/Sales/Services A good is anything movable at the time of identification in a sale, especially manufactured goods. Goods include growing crops, the unborn young of animals, and any other identified thing attached to reality. Service is the act of doing work for another. A sale is the transfer of title from seller to buyer for a price, which typically occurs at delivery if not otherwise specified. Here, the subject matter of the contract revolves around the aging and unoccupied house of Steve that Joe asked for in exchange for Joe maintaining that house. That house is not movable, nor can it be identified as any form of a good. Therefore, this is not a sale of goods and the UCC will not dictate. There is no sound argument to be made that the house is a good due to its fixed nature at the time of contract; validity of contract will be discussed below. Therefore, this contract is not displaced by the UCC in the sale of goods and is governed by common law. Formation A contract is a promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law provides a remedy and for the performance of which it recognizes as a duty. A promise is a manifestation of intent to act or refrain from acting in a specified manner, made to justify another in understanding that a commitment has been made. The formation of a contract requires a bargain with a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange and consideration. Mutual assent is the agreement upon the same bargain at the time, and is reflected in the offer and acceptance, writing, or conduct. Manifestation of assent to an exchange requires that each party either make a promise or begin or render a performance. The manifestation of assent may be made wholly or partly, written or spoken, or by other acts or failure to act. The conduct of a party may manifest assent even though he does not in fact assent. A. Offer An offer is a manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, made to justify another in understanding that their assent is invited and will conclude it. Per Lefkowitz, a valid offer must be reasonably certain, demonstrating objective intent, and communicated to create a power of acceptance. At common law the offer is relatively certain when it contains the Quantity, Time, Involved Parties, Price, And Subject Matter. However, not every term must be expressly stated. Courts may supply reasonable missing terms when the parties intended to be bound by the agreement.

Hello, everyone! My name is Peter Le, and I am a 3L at the University of La Verne. I am in the process of coaching a high school mock trial team, am a certified LDA, am a SBA representative, am currently learning probate, am networking like a storm, and I have a dog named Tucker. I would ultimately like to do transactional law and help bring businesses back and forth between Vietnam and America. Fun fact: I can wiggle both my ears, or either individual ear. I used to act like a hippo when I'm in the pool.

I would like to add there is a $150 fee that 1L students need to pay towards the State Bar within 90 days of them becoming a law student. Just a small detail that most students forget due to the overwhelming nature of 1L.

Thanks, Belyn!

Interesting thought. Reminds me of the story of the Greek story, "Antigone" (whether to uphold the laws of man or the laws of god/morality). Personally, I believe, in the grand scheme of things, that justice and laws were created to keep a society from falling into disorder. Imagine if "street justice" was the way, or we live in a world were its "an eye for an eye". It would be chaos at a subjective level. Yes, the people's adherence to the law is strengthened by the law's effectiveness. And yes, we ought to strive to have effective laws in order for society reasonably follow. As you pointed out, "criminal" laws should have in balance: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation. However, have you considered the history behind these laws and how it is that the US nation, or its states, has gotten to this point? These laws aren't enacted by one person, nor in a vacuum. Everytime a law is enacted or created, it has been vetted and challenged and gone through a series of procedures and several different courtrooms. Also with punishment, the system is not perfect, but at the end of the day, the people have the right to have their trial by a pool of jury of their peers, and there is also a process when that is determined. Also, the justice system, at least, leaves room for methods and ways to improve upon it. Honestly, this is also what keeps AI from replacing the criminal system. AI can only capture the word of the law, but will never understand the essence of the law. AI cannot distinguish facts, it only understands keywords, and due to that its limited by what it's given or inputted, whereas the human mind does not. Human mind can learn when a law is no longer effective, they can challenge it, question it, and change it. AI will continue using whatever parameters that was set in its conception, unless someone does an update. I guess ultimately, every year we have new people learning and entering the legal field who are keeping things moving and changing things. It makes law and the concept of justice a breathing entity, which is kind of beautiful humane process.